Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent's employment with the West Virginia Department of Transportation (DOH) was terminated because Respondent allegedly accessed and attempted to access pornographic websites using a computer owned by the State. Emphasizing that the computer was located in a common area for the use of several workers, Respondent denied that he was the offending employee. The Public Employees Grievance Board found in favor of Respondent and directed the DOH to reinstate him to his employment. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DOH did not carry its burden of proving the allegations against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. View "W. Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Litten" on Justia Law

Petitioner was employed as a custodian by Respondent, the Board of Education of the County of Raleigh under a 210-day regular contract and thirty-day summer contract that did not include paid vacation days. Petitioner filed a grievance against Respondent in 2007, asserting that Respondent violated the uniformity provisions in W. Va. Code 18A-4-5b and the discrimination prohibition of W. Va. Code 6C-2-2(d) by employing a similarly situated custodian with a 261-day contract that included paid vacation days. The West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board found Petitioner established that Respondent violated sections 18A-4-5b and 6C-2-2(d) but denied both back pay and prospective relief to Petitioner. The circuit court affirmed the denial of relief. Petitioner appealed, seeking lost wages for the school year after which Petitioner initiated his grievance. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief to Petitioner, holding that an employee who holds a 210-day regular contract and a thirty-day contract to perform related duties during a summer school term does not perform like assignments and duties with a school service employee who holds a 261-day regular contract for the purpose of the uniformity provisions found in section 18A-4-5b. View "Patterson v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Raleigh" on Justia Law

Petitioner was hired by Employer as a general laborer to work on a pipeline project. When some unsecured pipe struck Petitioner in the back, Petitioner sustained back and other injuries. Petitioner subsequently applied for and received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Employer subsequently refused to rehire Petitioner, and petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation benefits. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant action claiming workers' compensation discrimination and alleging that Employer acted with "deliberate intention" to cause Petitioner's injury. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer. Petitioner appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Employer acted with deliberate intention to cause Petitioner's injury and whether Employer refused to rehire Petitioner in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment for Employer, as (1) Petitioner failed to demonstrate the statutory predicate for a deliberate intention claim; and (2) Petitioner failed to adduce prima facie evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of material fact with regard to his claim of workers' compensation discrimination. View "Smith v. Apex Pipeline Servs." on Justia Law

Respondents were former employees of Verizon West Virginia, Inc. who filed wrongful termination claims against Verizon based upon alleged violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Petitioners were Verizon and various of its managerial and similar-positioned employees (collectively, Verizon) who were named as defendants in the underlying wrongful termination proceedings. At issue before the Supreme Court was Verizon's contention that Respondents' counsel's (Law Firm) prior representation of other former employees of Verizon in substantially related matters that were settled and dismissed required Law Firm to be disqualified. The circuit court permitted Law Firm to continue its representation of Respondents. Verizon subsequently requested the issuance of a writ of prohibition disqualifying Law Firm. The Supreme Court denied the writ, finding that Verizon was not entitled to prohibitory relief because (1) Law Firm's successive representation of its former and current clients did not constitute a conflict under the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) moreover, the relief requested by Verizon would impermissibly restrict Law Firm's right to practice law in contravention of the Rules of Professional Conduct. View "State ex rel. Verizon West Virginia, Inc. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Employee resigned from her employment with Employer after Employee failed to accommodate Employee's responsibilities regarding daycare for her children. Employee filed for unemployment compensation benefits. An ALJ found Employee was eligible for benefits. The Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia reversed the award of benefits, finding that Employee's departure was not for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The circuit court reversed, concluding that Employee was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because Employee had terminated her employment for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the decision of the Board of Review, holding that Employee terminated her employment voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. View "Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Epling" on Justia Law

Before the Supreme Court were consolidated appeals of three separate final orders of the circuit court. The appeals were made by Petitioners, state troopers or their survivors, and were as follows: (1) Petitioners appealed a March 30, 2011 order dismissing their complaint against the state police and others alleging they were placed in the wrong retirement plan; (2) Petitioners appealed a March 30, 2011 order granting summary judgment in favor of the state police in Petitioners' claim that the police, during the recruitment of Petitioners, misrepresented which retirement plan Petitioners would be placed in upon their employment as state troopers; and (3) Petitioners appealed a June 29, 2011 order denying Petitioners' motion, made pursuant to W.V. R. Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from the circuit court's March 30, 2011 order dismissing the complaint against the retirement board, state, state police retirement system, and others. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court's March 30, 2011 order dismissing all of the respondents except the state police; (2) affirmed the March 30, 2011 order that granted summary judgment on behalf of the state police; and (3) affirmed the June 29, 2011 order denying Petitioners' Rule 60(b) motion. View "Bland v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review through which Petitioner's permanent total disability (PTD) award previously granted was suspended and vacated. Petitioner challenged the Board's determination, upon a reopening of his PTD claim, that he was capable of gainful employment. Petitioner argued that his former employer, Lowe's, violated the statute that authorized the claim reopening because Lowe's was involved in the reevaluation process, and therefore, the order vacating his PTD award was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that notwithstanding statutory language that suggests otherwise, an order issued by the Board that modifies or vacates a previous award of PTD is not subject to challenge based on the involvement of a self-insured former employer in the reevaluation process, given that the participation of the self-insured former employer is clearly anticipated and authorized by the provisions of W. Va. Cod 23-4-16(d). View "Justice v. W. Va. Office Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court for a second time. Here the case was before the Court on a petition for writ of prohibition brought by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) seeking to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order requiring Roger Crandall, the president, CEO and chairman of Mass Mutual, to submit to deposition. The underlying lawsuits were part of a series of 412i retirement plan cases against multiple defendants, including MassMutual. Respondents alleged fraud and tax fraud in their complaints regarding annuities and pension plans that allegedly subjected Respondents to tax and compliance penalties and other collateral liabilities. In MassMutual I, the Court issued a writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its orders that directed Crandall submit to deposition. In the instant appeal, MassMutual argued that the circuit court failed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in MassMutual I in ordering its president to submit to deposition. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the circuit court and Respondents failed to follow the directive of the Court in MassMutual I, and therefore, the court was prohibited from enforcing its order requiring Crandall to submit to deposition. View "State ex rel. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against The Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, Stella-Jones U.S. Holding Corporation, and Stella-Jones, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) alleging that Defendants unlawfully terminated his employment based on his age. Finding that Defendants wrongfully terminated the employment of Plaintiff based on his age, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,133,990, which represented compensatory damages for lost back pay and front pay. Denying that age played any role in Plaintiff's termination, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendants submitted three assignments of error upon which they contended the motion for a new trial should have been granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice " on Justia Law

Petitioners asked the circuit court to declare that the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board could not impose disability re-certification requirements of an amended statute and new rule upon them. The circuit court determined that Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, therefore, dismissed the case. Petitioners appealed, contending the circuit court erred in not reaching the merits of their petition because the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was inapplicable to the facts of their case. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court properly dismissed Petitioners' statute-based claims; but (2) Petitioners' rule-based and letter-based claims were properly before the circuit court. Remanded. View "Hicks v. Mani" on Justia Law