Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint claiming failure to accommodate, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, holding that the circuit court did not err.In dismissing the complaint, the circuit court found that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they could have been raised in an earlier lawsuit between the same parties. Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) she was foreclosed from raising her claims during the earlier proceeding because the deadline for amendments to the pleadings had passed, and (2) the claims were different from those raised in the earlier lawsuit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly found that res judicata was a bar to the litigation of Plaintiff's claims. View "Baker v. Chemours Co. FC, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court modifying the disposition of this case to terminate Petitioners' parental rights under W. Va. Code Ann. 49-4-604(c)(6), holding that the circuit court erred in modifying the disposition absent a motion under section 49-4-606 and that the parties were deprived of due process when they were not notified that the circuit court intended to take up a motion to modify disposition.In 2017, the circuit court ordered a "section 5" disposition, concluding that Petitioners were unwilling or unable to provide for B.W.'s needs and that there were no parenting services available specifically tailed to Petitioners' need for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 through 12213. The court did not terminate Petitioners' parental rights at that time but dismissed the case from its docket. In 2019, the circuit court held a status hearing and sua sponte modified the case's disposition to terminate Petitioners' parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that termination of Petitioners' parental rights violated the procedure required by section 49-4-606 to modify disposition and denied Petitioners due process. View "In re B.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the arbitration agreement put forth by Petitioners was not authentic.After her employment ended, Respondent filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful and discriminatory discharge. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss/compel arbitration, asserting that this matter was subject to a valid and binding arbitration agreement. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that significant questions existed with regard to the authenticity of the arbitration agreement. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of the circuit court's order. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the circuit court committed clear legal error in denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration by finding the arbitration agreement was not authentic. View "State ex rel. Troy Group v. Honorable David J. Sims" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the circuit court in favor of Rosa Lee Butcher in the suit Butcher filed against Defendants, a police officer and the Clarksburg City Police Department, holding that in a claim filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 a plaintiff cannot obtain a finding of liability or receive a judgment for damages against a John Doe defendant.The circuit court upheld the jury's finding of liability against the John Doe defendants, as well as the judgment rendered against the John Doe defendants in favor of Butcher. The court then awarded costs and attorney's fees to Butcher. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a government official can be held liable only for his or her own misconduct, and Butcher failed to establish that any of the John Doe defendants were personally and directly responsible for the conduct giving rise to her section 1983 claim; and (2) because Butcher did not prevail in her section 1983 action she was not entitled to receive an award of her costs or attorney's fees. View "Vinson v. Butcher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to solicit a minor using a computer, holding that the warrantless seizure of Defendant's cell phone was reasonable under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone, arguing that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not cover law enforcement's seizure of his phone. The circuit court denied Defendant's motion, apparently based on the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. After Defendant was convicted he appealed, arguing that the temporary warrantless seizure of his cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Deem" on Justia Law

In this discrimination lawsuit brought under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, holding that the circuit court did not err.The jury found in favor of Defendants on their claims and awarded each of them $475,000. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Defendants violated the WVHRA; (2) the circuit court did not err by allowing Plaintiffs to call a rebuttal witness to testify about comments a plaintiff made; and (3) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendants' motion for a new trial on the basis that the jury verdict was excessive. View "McClure Management, LLC v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's requested writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing a ruling that found an audio/video recording of a voluntary statement made to law enforcement officers by H.D., the defendant in the underlying criminal proceeding, violated H.D.'s privilege against self-incrimination, holding that a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by the admission into evidence and/or publication to the jury during a criminal proceeding of an audio/video recording of the defendant's voluntary statement made to law enforcement officers. Because H.D. was in a non-custodial setting when he made his incriminating statement and affirmatively waived his rights, H.D. may not now assert the privilege against self-incrimination in his criminal proceeding to avoid the admission into evidence and/or publication to the jury of that recording. View "State ex rel. Wade v. Honorable David W. Hummel, Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's age discrimination claim, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Defendant was entitled to the benefit of a severance agreement and general release.Plaintiff, who worked for nineteen years as an area supervisor of One Stop convenience stores, lost his job after Defendant leased approximately forty-one of those stores. Plaintiff applied for a job with Defendant but was not hired. Plaintiff filed suit alleging age discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff had released any employment-related claims against Defendant when he executed a severance agreement and general release with his former employer and its corporate affiliates. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the applicability of the release agreement to Plaintiff's claim against Defendant. View "Henzler v. Turnoutz, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for incest, sexual assault in the third degree, and sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Defendant's first trial resulted in a hung jury, and his second trial resulted in a conviction on nine counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the first trial did not result in Defendant's acquittal based on the circuit court's manner of polling the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err when it continued Defendant's first trial past the first term of court over Defendant's objection; (3) there was no error in the circuit court's decision to allow the jury to hear the State's DNA evidence; (4) the circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss a juror who admitted to knowing the victim and the prosecutor; and (5) the doctrine of cumulative error did not apply in Defendant's case. View "State v. Jeremy S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming Defendant's conviction for one count of domestic battery, holding that law enforcement officers' entry into Defendant's home was reasonable under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement.After a magistrate court jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery of his wife and sentenced to ten days in jail. The circuit court affirmed, holding that the officers' entry into Defendant's home fell under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and that, therefore, the officers acted reasonably. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the warrantless entry into Defendant's home fell within the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal on his remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Rexrode" on Justia Law