Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner served as general counsel to the West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVDA) for approximately twenty-five years. The WVDA submitted employer and employee contributions to the Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) on Petitioner’s behalf for twenty-one years. In 2013, the the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (“Board”) notified Petitioner that he was not eligible to participate in PERS because he was not a full-time employee. The Board subsequently entered a final order denying Petitioner’s request to participate in PERS on the grounds that he was not a full-time employee. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was statutorily prohibited from participating in PERS because he never worked more than approximately three hundred hours in any one year. View "Curry v. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd." on Justia Law

Patricia Jones (Patricia) and Danny Akers (Danny) divorced. Thereafter, Judy Vannoy Akers (Judy) and Danny married. After Danny died, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Board (Board) awarded Judy disability retirements. Patricia argued that she was entitled to Danny’s West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement benefits based on the provision for those benefits in her divorce decree. The Board denied benefits on the grounds that there was not an enforceable qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in effect at the time when the survivor benefits were issued to Judy. Both Patricia and Judy challenged the Board’s rulings. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court reversed after invoking its equitable powers to permit the posthumous entry of a QDRO that provided for distribution of Patricia’s equitable interest in the portion of Danny’s retirement assets recognized as marital property, holding (1) the Board erred in granting posthumous disability benefits to Judy rather than preretirement benefits; and (2) Patricia was entitled to seek Danny’s PERS benefits. View "Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against their employer and its CEO (collectively, Petitioners) alleging gender discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment. After a jury trial, Respondents were awarded $250,000 each for emotional distress as compensatory damages and $250,000 each in punitive damages. Petitioners filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and requested a review of the punitive damages award. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order of the circuit court to the extent that it denied Petitioners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial on Respondents’ award of compensatory damages for their hostile work environment claims, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support their claims for sexual harassment based on hostile work environment; but (2) reversed the circuit court’s order to the extent that it denied Petitioners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on Respondents’ award of punitive damages, holding that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the standards for the imposition of punitive damages. View "Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood v. Griffith" on Justia Law

Two individuals (Claimants) who sustained work-related injuries received workers’ compensation benefits. Claimants sought additional benefits as a result of further symptoms related to their original workplace injuries and timely requested that the new diagnoses be added to their original claims. In both cases, however, denials of compensability and/or medical treatment required extensive litigation through the workers’ compensation system. The Supreme Court ultimately found Claimants to be entitled to the compensability ruling/medical treatment they had requested, but as a result of the litigation delays, Claimants’ requests for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits associated with the newly added diagnoses were denied by the workers’ compensation system as untimely filed. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the Board of Review denying Claimants’ PPD evaluation requests as untimely and remanded, holding (1) Claimants’ requests for a PPD evaluation were timely pursuant to W. Va. Code 23-4-16(a)(2); and (2) to hold otherwise would effectively deny Claimants their statutory rights to receive a permanent disability evaluation and to be compensated for their workplace injuries. Remanded. View "Hammons v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r" on Justia Law

Larry Myers, a sales associate, worked at Outdoor Express, Inc., a recreational vehicle dealership. Myers received no pay if no sales were finalized during the preceding two-week period. Myers filed claims for, and received, unemployment compensation benefits for periods when he did not receive commission checks for sales of recreational vehicles. A deputy commissioner with Workforce West Virginia subsequently determined that the benefits were to be repaid by Myers, finding that Myers was neither totally nor partially unemployed during various periods between November 29, 2008 and March 17, 2012, and was, therefore, ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The circuit court affirmed the administrative decision and directed that Myers pay back $39,713 in benefits he received for the periods in question. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that Myers was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits because he was neither totally nor partially unemployed during the periods in question; but (2) the $39,713 was improperly calculated based on the statute of limitations pertaining to the overpayments in this case. View "Myers v. Outdoor Express, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1996, the Mason County Board of Education and Michael Whalen, the then-superintendent of schools, entered into a settlement agreement in which Whalen agreed to forego the final year of his superintendent contract in exchange for a lump sum payment of $60,000. Whalen retired in 1997. In 1998, the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, as administrator of the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, ruled that a $60,000 payment received by Whalen did not constitute “salary” and therefore would not be included when calculating his retirement annuity benefit. In 2001, Whalen filed a complaint in the circuit court that was, in essence, an appeal of the Retirement Board’s 1998 final order. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Whalen. The Retirement Board then filed this complaint seeking a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Whalen’s appeal was not filed within the thirty-day period specified in W. Va. Code 29A-5-4(bb), and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling that Whalen’s appeal was timely. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Hon. David W. Nibert" on Justia Law

Prior to his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, a tin plate manufacturer, as a technician operator. After his termination, Petitioner and his wife (Petitioners) filed this action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge and loss of consortium, alleging that Petitioner was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and making complaints to Respondent about those permit violations. Respondents removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity. The federal district court then certified a question to the West Virginia supreme Court, which answered the question as follows: An employee who alleges that he was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under authority of the WPCA and making complaints to his employer about those permit violations has established the predicate substantial public policy required to prima facie prove that the employer’s motivation for the discharge was the contravention of public policy. View "Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC" on Justia Law

Russell H., a twenty-four-year-old coal miner, died in his sleep from a seizure, leaving behind his mother (Petitioner) and his six-year-old daughter, L.H. Petitioner, on L.H.’s behalf, applied for dependent’s death benefits exactly six months after she received an autopsy report indicating that Russell’s cause of death stemmed from a work-related injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review denied death benefits on the basis that Petitioner failed to file her application within six months after Russell’s death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Board erred in finding that Petitioner’s application was time-barred because the first known medical evidence that Russell’s cause of death was work-related was not made available to the family until eight months after the death; and (2) Petitioner was a proper party to file for defendant’s death benefits on L.H.’s behalf. Remanded. View "Sheena H. v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r" on Justia Law

Ray Toney, a former employee of Citynet, LLC, filed an action seeking to redeem the vested balance of his Employee Incentive Plan account. The circuit court grant partial summary judgment to Toney, concluding that Toney was entitled to payment of his entire vested balance in the Plan, that Citynet’s failure to pay Toney his vested balance violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), and that Citynet was liable to Toney for liquidated damages, the costs of the action, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Toney or in applying the WPCA; but (2) erred in setting the date from which prejudgment interest would accrue and in failing to offset its award by the amount that Toney previously had received from his Plan account. View "Citynet, LLC v. Toney" on Justia Law

The Lewis County Board of Education (Board) terminated Michael Holden’s employment as a school bus driver due to his physical inability to safely perform his job duties. Holden filed a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, alleging, among other things, that the Board’s denial of his request for a leave of absence was improper. The grievance board upheld the Board’s decision on all issues, determining that Holden was properly terminated and that his grievance on the leave of absence issue was not timely filed. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Board improperly terminated Holden and that Holden timely filed his grievance of the Board’s denial of his request for a leave of absence. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the grievance board’s decision, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) setting aside the grievance board’s decision, as the Board did not err in terminating Holden based on physical incompetency; and (2) finding that Holden did not timely file his grievance as to the leave of absence issue. View "Lewis County Bd. of Educ. v. Holden" on Justia Law