statutory ground for seeking an administrative hearing in the OAH. See N.C.G.S. § 126-34.1(a)(7). Accordingly, the doctrine of administrative exhaustion does not prevent plaintiff from filing a whistleblower claim in superior court. In conclusion, plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to overcome defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Moreover, plaintiff is not barred from bringing his claim by the doctrine of administrative exhaustion. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that Court for consideration of plaintiffs remaining assignment of error. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 . We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled Goff in Carter v. South Central Bell, 912 F.2d 832, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 115 L. Ed. 2d
holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc  1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 holding that civil rights claims under 42 usc  1981 and 1982 are personal injury tort claims holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981