Hank and Britney covered key developments from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, shifting EEOC enforcement priorities, the growing challenges surrounding employee political expression, and the rapid rise of AI in workplace operations. Their presentation focused on practical strategies employers can use to respond to evolving legal standards, manage risk, and build thoughtful workplace policies for 2026 and beyond. We appreciate the opportunity to support RTAC ACC each year and to engage with so many in-house leaders on the issues that matter most to their organizations.

The presentation is available HERE.

The post 2026 RTAC ACC Lunch & Learn appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

While we appreciate the recognition, we have never measured our success simply by the size of our roster. To us, client service will always be more important than our headcount.

However, we view this growth as a direct reflection of the trust our clients place in us. It is a testament to the quality of legal services we strive to provide every day and, most importantly, the deep talent and dedication of our attorneys and professional staff.

Thank you to our clients for your continued partnership, and to our incredible team for making this milestone possible.

The post Growth Driven by Client Trust – Morningstar Law Group Ranked 10th Largest Firm in the Triangle appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

The post Congratulations to Attorney Matthew Blewitt-Castro! appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Ann joins us as Counsel in our Real Estate and Land Use practice, bringing extensive experience in land use, planning, zoning, and civil litigation.

Before joining Morningstar, Ann served as Town Attorney for Chapel Hill and as a tenured professor at the UNC School of Government, where she taught and advised North Carolina judges. Her background gives her a unique perspective on the legal challenges faced by real estate developers, municipalities, and property owners.

“Ann’s expertise in land use, municipal law, and civil litigation makes her an exceptional addition to our team,” said Jason Barron, Partner and Integrator at Morningstar. “Her insight and guidance will be invaluable to clients navigating planning, zoning, and land use issues.”

Our Real Estate and Land Use group continues to grow — now 12 attorneys strong — helping clients move projects forward across North Carolina.

We’re thrilled to have Ann on board and look forward to the experience and perspective she brings to the team.

The post Welcome Ann Anderson to Our Real Estate & Land Use Team! appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

If an employer decides to take action based on social media use, that action should align with applicable law, company polices, company culture, the severity of the offense, and decisions the employer will make in the future.  

Federal, state and local laws govern whether an employer can take an employment action based on social media use, even when the use disrupts business.  For example, some state and local laws specifically safeguard employees’ conduct (whether on-duty or off-duty) related to their political views.  Others protect employees’ off-duty conduct, including social media use, requiring employers to link the conduct to the job before taking disciplinary action. While federal laws do not directly protect political affiliation or speech in the private employment context, anti-discrimination laws may be implicated when employee speech involves a protected characteristic (e.g., race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, veteran status, etc.), and federal law protects employees who engage in concerted activities to improve the terms and conditions of their employment.

Company policies may prohibit certain conduct and/or promise protection for political speech or off-duty conduct. Companies should honor their policies and apply them consistently. Now would be a good time to refresh relevant policies and training (social media, code of conduct, safety, etc.) and consider a reminder to employees about the importance of following the law and company policies with respect to communications inside and outside of work.

Each situation must be considered on its own facts and in light of the employer’s risk tolerance and cultural priorities. For example, action may be appropriate if a social media post promotes violence, is egregiously offensive, or targets a person’s or group’s protected characteristics (e.g., age, race, sex or ethnicity), but a post that civilly expresses one’s opinion on a loaded political issue (e.g., gun control, abortion, or immigration), even if different from the company’s views, might not warrant action.  And, employers should consider the precedent they may be setting when they make a decision in an individual case, even when the action they want to take is not specifically prohibited by applicable law.

There are a wide variety of potential responses to these situations, depending on the circumstances.  We can help businesses sort through the complications and find an appropriate course of action.

The post Employment Law Alert – Reacting to Employee Social Media Posts appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

The Court’s 33-page order thoroughly analyzed the trademark dispute between BLUE SKY MD, a weight loss and hormone therapy clinic, and our client, PARDEE BLUEMD, a primary care provider network that is part of the Pardee Hospital system. The Court found that while the plaintiffs owned a valid trademark, they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the marks – the central element required for trademark infringement. Chief Judge Martin Reidinger thoroughly evaluated the relevant factors, concluding that the BLUE SKY MD mark was relatively weak, the marks were dissimilar in appearance and context, and there was insufficient evidence of actual consumer confusion.

Particularly notable was the Court’s analysis of the evidence of alleged confusion. The Court determined that most of the plaintiffs’ evidence consisted of inadmissible hearsay or reflected only de minimis confusion that was quickly dispelled. The Court emphasized that the parties’ services differed significantly – with BLUE SKY MD primarily offering weight loss and hormone therapy while PARDEE BLUEMD provided comprehensive primary care as part of a nonprofit hospital system.

Winning on summary judgment in trademark cases is relatively rare for defendants. The stringent multi-factor test for trademark infringement typically creates factual issues that courts prefer to resolve at trial, making the victory for our clients at this stage particularly significant. We are extremely pleased by this result for our clients.

The post Morningstar Intellectual Property Team Wins Summary Judgement in Trademark Case appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Insight by Morningstar Law Group Partner Jeff Roether

On December 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of North Carolina issued a ruling in Schooldev East, LLC, v. Town of Wake Forest (Case No. 268A22) which reaffirmed North Carolina’s public policy in favor of “the free and unrestricted use and enjoyment of land” and the protection of property rights in general.

Background

In 2019, Schooldev East, LLC (“SE”), applied to the Town of Wake Forest (the “Town”) for a major subdivision plan permit and a major site plan permit with the intention of constructing a charter school on a thirty-five-acre parcel of land.

The Town’s planning board and board of commissioners held joint hearing on the application where SE presented evidence to support the application, in specific, evidence as to SE’s compliance with the Town’s uniform development ordinance (the “UDO”) section 3.7.5 which contained provisions regarding the “construction of off-premises sidewalks, multi-use paths[,] or greenways to existing networks” and “[c]onnectivity…to surrounding residential areas”. SE presented evidence that it would construct a multi-use path along the front of the property connecting the project to a neighboring park and to a future subdivision across the road. During the hearing, no evidence in opposition to SE’s application was presented.

Despite this, the planning board voted to recommend denial of the application. The board of commissioners then deliberated, considering matters beyond the scope of the evidence presented, and subsequently voted to deny the application, justifying the denial in large part on the board’s determination that the project would not provide sufficient connectivity with all surrounding neighborhoods.

SE appealed, first to the Wake County Superior Court and then to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, both of which upheld the decision of the board of commissioners. SE then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Analysis

The primary issue addressed by the Court was whether the applicant introduced sufficient evidence to establish the UDO’s requirement of “connectivity” to “surrounding residential areas.” The Town argued that the UDO required connection to “all” surrounding residential neighborhoods. SE argued that the UDO only required some connection to surrounding residential neighborhoods—which its application provided for—but not to all surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The Court determined that the ordinance did not expressly require connection to “all” surrounding areas. The UDO text required only connectivity “to surrounding residential areas” without any further qualification. Without express unambiguous language requiring complete connection, the Court found no basis for the denial. The Court further noted that state law prohibits the Town from compelling the applicant to provide off-premises improvements, which shows additional uncertainty as to whether the word “surrounding” was include non-contiguous properties.

As a result of the UDO’s ambiguity, the Court relied upon long-standing North Carolina precedents for the correct interpretation of land use ordinances. Under North Carolina law, any “well-founded doubt” as to the meaning of a land use ordinance must be resolved in favor of the “free use of property.” See Yancey v. Heafner, 268 N.C. 263, 266 (1966). The Court stressed that “[t]his is no arbitrary canon of construction,” but rather a reflection of “our state’s longstanding public policy favoring the ‘free and unrestricted use and enjoyment of land.’” Id at 21.

Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Town to approve the applications

Conclusion

While North Carolina’s protection of property rights is not a new development, this case is an important reminder that all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the “free use of land.”. Cases such as this continue to light the way for property owners looking to utilize their property as best they can, and serves as a reminder to local governments that clarity is best for all parties involved. As the Court observed in School Dev East, property owners “should not need law degrees to figure out what local government ordinances allow them to do with their own land.” Schooldev East, LLC, v. Town of Wake Forest, 386 N.C. 775, 789 (2024).

The post Toward the Free Use of Land: SchoolDev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Le’Ron Byrd is a seasoned commercial and business litigation attorney who helps clients—ranging from businesses to nonprofits—navigate complex civil disputes. From state and federal court litigation to nationwide post-judgment collection and construction-related matters, Le’Ron brings strategic insight and strong advocacy to every case.

Hunter Winstead is a land use attorney who guides developers through zoning and permitting challenges across North Carolina. With a strong foundation in real estate litigation and experience as legal counsel to Chief Justice Paul Newby, Hunter combines sharp legal acumen with creative problem-solving to help clients build with confidence.

We’re thrilled to have Le’Ron and Hunter on board! Welcome to the team!

The post Le’Ron Byrd and Hunter Winstead Join Morningstar Law Group appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.