Kent Stahle v. CTS Corporation

I concur in the majority’s outcome, but I write separately for three reasons. First, I would not .rely so heavily on our decision in Hyer v. Pittsburgh Coming Corp., 790 . F.2d 30 (4th Cir.1986), which construed a North Carolina statute significantly different than the one at bar, and which has never been cited in a reported North Carolina, decision. Second, I address Appel-lee’s unfounded argument that there is no “meaningful difference” between the claims in CTS v. Waldburger, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014), and the claim in this case. Finally, I note that a North Carolina…