The North Carolina Department of Labor had 71 pages of browser history to support firing its assistant human resources director. A Raleigh administrative judge found the department had not established how much time the employee actively spent on personal browsing or identified harm to her work. The September 16 ruling reversed the dismissal while finding that the employee had violated the computer-use policy on December 11, 2025.
The job and pay remedy remains unsettled. The judge ordered placement at the same grade and salary, plus back pay less lawful offsets. But Carolina Journal reported October 5 that the North Carolina Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the decision on October 2. Public records checked October 6 did not yield the full stay order or verify that placement, payment or benefit restoration had occurred.
A browser entry was not a time measure
In the findings signed by Administrative Law Judge Stacey Bice Bawtinhimer, the department’s acting employee-relations consultant conducted the substantive computer search. The IT director enabled access but did not review or interpret the browser data. The judge found no forensic software or technical interpretation was used, and no forensic image was preserved or described. The judge’s findings describe that process at pages 26 and 27.
The report included thirteen entries with the same minute-level timestamp. The decision says NCDOL’s decision makers could not say whether an entry reflected an intentional page visit, a redirect, a reload, a background process or several entries generated during one brief visit. They also did not calculate active personal-use time. Those findings appear at pages 33 through 35.
The employee admitted personal use. Bawtinhimer found a December 11 policy violation, but concluded that the pattern and duration did not warrant dismissal. The browser evidence had not reliably quantified active personal use or shown that the employee abandoned assigned work. The judge’s own duration estimate was expressly nontechnical; this article does not treat it as a forensic measurement. See findings 110–115 and 154–172.
The dismissal turned on more than browser counts
Browser evidence was only one part of NCDOL’s case. The department also cited unsatisfactory job performance, including alleged failures to cross-train subordinates. The judge found that NCDOL had issued only one written warning, when dismissal for unsatisfactory job performance required two qualifying warnings. The decision addresses that ground at pages 28 through 30 and 55.
For the browser-related allegation, the decision also examined the written policy, the employee’s record, the harm shown and discipline in comparable situations. The policy permitted reasonable personal internet use under specified conditions, including no negative impact on public duties. The judge found that the stricter interpretation applied in this case had not been adequately communicated as a work rule. See findings 145–151.
The decision further found no identified security breach, lost data, damaged equipment, missed deadline, incomplete assignment or demonstrated job impairment from the browsing at issue. It concluded that NCDOL had not adequately considered the employee’s work history, the absence of actual harm and prior discipline for comparable conduct before choosing dismissal. Those findings and conclusions appear at pages 36 through 42 and 55 through 57.
NCDOL disputes the ruling, and the remedy is unsettled
NCDOL has challenged the result. In reporting published October 5, the department said the decision contained substantial legal and factual errors and exceeded the administrative judge’s statutory authority. That is NCDOL’s position, reported by The News & Observer and syndicated by AOL, not a finding by an appellate court.
The September 16 decision directed NCDOL to correct personnel records, place the employee in another state position at the same grade and salary, restore specified benefits and provide back pay from January 14 through placement or reinstatement, less lawful offsets. It did not calculate a final dollar amount. The operative order appears at page 62.
The reports differ on the procedural status: N&O describes a requested stay, while Carolina Journal reports it was granted. The official order linked by Carolina Journal could not be retrieved on October 6. We cannot independently establish its exact terms or claim that the employee has received the ordered remedy.
What to watch next
- A public copy of the Court of Appeals stay order, which could show whether all or only part of the OAH remedy is paused.
- A current appellate docket or later order showing whether the temporary stay remains in effect.
- NCDOL’s appeal filings and any response, which could clarify the legal and factual errors the agency says require reversal.
- Records showing whether NCDOL has corrected the personnel file, made a same-grade placement, restored benefits or calculated back pay.
For a worker facing discipline, the distinction affects a job and pay. For a manager relying on computer records, the question is what the records actually establish. This ruling identifies missing steps between browser entries and a dismissal decision. The appeal will determine whether that ruling stands.