Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An Employee filed a class action complaint against her Employer alleging that the Employer violated the state’s Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Standards (MWMHS) by failing to pay her for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Employer, determining that the MWMHS only applies to “employees” and “employers” as defined under the MWMHS and that the Employer in this case did not meet the statutory definition of “employer.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Employer was regulated by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore, the Employer did not meet the definition of an “employer” under the state’s MWMHS for purposes of the Employee’s overtime compensation claim. View "King v. West Virginia's Choice, Inc." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying her the possibility of parole for the duration of her life imprisonment. Specifically, Defendant argued that the circuit court did not adequately justify its decision to depart from the prosecutor’s recommendation, in accordance with the plea agreement, that Defendant be granted eligibility for eventual parole from the required life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court’s rejection of the State’s recommendation was an appropriate exercise of its legitimate discretion. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the recommendation of mercy. In 1995, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. In 2012, Petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2013, Petitioner was paroled. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition as moot because Petitioner no longer satisfied the statutory requirement of being incarcerated and because Petitioner received the relief he sought - release from custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a parolee, Petitioner was no longer incarcerated, and therefore, he was no entitled to seek post-conviction habeas relief. View "Cline v. Mirandy" on Justia Law

Petitioners were seven electricians who were employed by Eastern Electric, LLC, an electrical contractor, on several public works projects. Petitioners filed this civil action to recover statutory wages and liquidated damages under the Prevailing Wage Act and Wage Payment and Collection Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Eastern Electric. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court erred in dismissing Petitioners’ Prevailing Wage Act claims as untimely, and disputed issues of material fact existed with regard to Eastern Electric’s “honest mistake or error” affirmative defense; and (2) the circuit court correctly dismissed Petitioners’ Wage Payment and Collection Act claims. View "Grim v. Eastern Electric, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (Commissioner), revoked Respondent’s driver’s license on the grounds of driving under the influence of alcohol and refusal to submit to a secondary chemical breath test. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing before the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to challenge the order. Because the arresting officer failed to attend the first day of the hearing, the Commissioner sua sponte scheduled the license revocation matter for a further hearing. Respondent filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and an application for stay in the circuit court seeking to prohibit the DMV from conducting a second day of the hearing. The circuit court granted the petition, concluding that the Commissioner disregarded the procedural law for DMV hearings by scheduling a second hearing when the first hearing “[did] not proceed in a manner that benefits the Commissioner.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commissioner acted within his legitimate powers by adjourning and continuing the hearing to a later day in order to secure the officer’s testimony, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting this writ of prohibition. View "Dale v. Sizemore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that while housed at the Southern Regional Jail, she was raped repeatedly by a correctional officer. Plaintiff filed suit against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJCFA), alleging vicarious liability and negligence-based claims. The WVRJCFA moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The circuit court denied summary judgment, concluding (1) disputed issues of fact precluded a determination as to whether the WVRJCFA was vicariously liable for the alleged sexual assaults committed by its employee; and (2) Plaintiff’s claims of negligent supervision, training, and retention did not encompass “discretionary decisions in the administration of fundamental government policy.” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the WVRJCFA summary judgment, holding that the WVRJCFA was entitled to immunity on Plaintiff’s claims. View "W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B." on Justia Law

Jaymie Godwin Wilfong, a circuit court judge in Randolph County, admitted to having had a more than two-year-long affair with a local man. The judge deliberately intertwined the affair with her judicial office, and the evidence before the Judicial Hearing Board “established a clearly articulable nexus between the judge’s extrajudicial misconduct and her judicial duties.” The Hearing Board determined that the judge’s conduct constituted eleven separate violations of seven Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended that she be severely sanctioned. The Supreme Court adopted the Hearing Board’s finding that the judge committed eleven violations of seven Canons and held that the judge must be censured, suspended until the end of her term, and required to pay the costs of investigating and prosecuting these proceedings. View "In re Judge Jaymie Godwin Wilfong" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Racing Commission promulgated two administrative rules, a rule establishing the burden of proof for ejections by a racing association and a rule allowing the Racing Commission to grant a stay of a permit holder’s ejection by a racing association pending review. The Racing Commission adopted the rules without legislative approval, concluding that the rules were merely procedural rather than legislative and thus did not require legislative approval. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC filed a petition seeking a writ of prohibition and declaratory judgment claiming that the rules had not been properly promulgated under the West Virginia Administrative Procedures Act. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the Racing Decision, concluding that the rules were properly adopted without the need for legislative approval and that the Racing Commission possessed inherent authority to issue a stay of a racetrack’s ejection decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the two rules were properly enacted procedural rules that were within the authority of the Racing Commission. View "PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. W. Va. Racing Comm’n" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a written plea agreement Petitioner entered a no contest plea to one count of sexual abuse in the first degree. The circuit court later rescinded Petitioner’s probationary period “due to [Petitioner’s] non-compliance of conditions of his probation,” and sentenced Petitioner to a term of one to five years incarceration. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and ordered Petitioner released from incarceration, holding that the circuit court erred in rescinding Petitioner’s probationary period based upon its determination that Petitioner violated the conditions of his probation, as Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions of the plea agreement at issue in this case. View "State v. Shrader" on Justia Law

Petitioners, individually and in their capacities as representatives of 162 firefighters, filed a petition with the Fireman’s Civil Service Commission for the City of Charleston (the Commission) challenging the City of Charleston’s (City) method of calculating overtime wages. The Commission found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Petitioners’ claims. Petitioners filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court, alleging that the City should not be permitted to unilaterally alter its method of calculating overtime pay and asserting that the Commission should be compelled to assume jurisdiction in the matter. The circuit court dismissed the Commission and granted summary judgment to the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the underlying matter; and (2) no legal principle prevented the City’s action. View "Boggess v. City of Charleston" on Justia Law