Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the circuit court concluding that a "subsistence allowance" provided by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to Natural Resources Police Officers is "compensation" for purposes of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), holding that the allowance was not compensation.Beginning in 1997, DNR reported the payments of the subsistence allowances to the Consolidated Public Retirement Board as part of the officers' "compensation," which is a key component in calculating the officers' retirement annuities under PERS. In 2014, the Board determined that the subsistence allowance was not compensation and that the error had led to the miscalculation of benefits paid to retired officers. Respondents - current and retired officers and their widowers and widows - appealed and requested declaratory relief with the Board, alleging that the Board's determination violated their vested pension rights. The Board denied relief, but the circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the subsistence allowance was not compensation under PERS; and (2) the Board may not recover the excess retirement benefits already paid due to the error in treating the allowance as PERS compensation. View "W. Va. Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Activate Healthcare, LLC under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Plaintiff's factual allegations against Activate were insufficient to establish a claim of aiding and abetting under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.Plaintiff was working at Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC when she requested a change in her duties to accommodate her medical condition. Plaintiff was directed to Activate, Constellium's on-site medical provider, for a physical activity report, but Activate issued more than one report. Constellium terminated Plaintiff based on one of the reports and later returned to work. After Plaintiff unsuccessfully filed a grievance seeking lost wages during her break in employment she sued Constellium, Activate, and other defendants, alleging retaliation and discrimination. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's aiding and abetting claim against Activate for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that nothing in the complaint could be construed to establish the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. View "Boone vs. Activate Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the circuit court determining that the civil provisions of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), W. Va. Code 21-5-3, had not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, holding that the circuit court did not err.Plaintiff brought a retaliatory discharge claim against Defendants after he was terminated from his employment. The circuit court entered partial summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff's claims for the tort of outrage and retaliatory discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts supported the circuit court's order granting partial summary judgment. View "Greaser v. Hinkle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the West Virginia University Board of Governors (WVU BOG) on Plaintiff's claims alleging that the West Virginia University Institute of Technology (WVUIT) breached its agreement to pay him a supplementary salary for serving as director of a research center, holding that summary judgment was improper on Plaintiff's claim brought under the West Virginia Wage Payment Collection Act (WPCA), W. Va. Code 21-5-1 through 18.Plaintiff, a professor at WVUIT, brought this action against WVU BOG, which manages the educational operations of WVUIT, bringing a common law claim for breach of contract, alternative equitable claims of quantum merit and unjust enrichment, and a statutory cause of action under WPCA. WVU BOG, a state agency, moved for summary judgment, invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The circuit court granted summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) sovereign immunity did not bar Plaintiff's claims under the WPCA, and genuine issues of disputed fact existed as to whether WVU BOG violated the WPCA; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted on the remaining claims. View "Davari v. West Virginia University Board of Governors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court calculating seniority for purposes of a reduction in force among school service personnel who were originally hired by a county board of education as an aide and then subsequently obtained certification as an early childhood classroom assistant teacher (ECCAT), holding that the circuit court's decision was contrary to law.On appeal, the Webster County Board of Education (Webster BOE) argued that, contrary to the conclusion of the circuit court, seniority for purposes of a reduction in the number of service personnel who are certified as ECCATs should be calculated solely based on the accumulated amount of ECCAT seniority possessed by the employees. Respondents, Webster BOE employees, argued that the circuit court correctly calculated their ECCAT seniority based upon their accumulated seniority as aides. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's decision that aide seniority that aide seniority is used to determine the rank of service personnel subject to a reduction in force in the ECCAT class title was contrary to law. View "Webster County Board of Education v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment reversing and vacating an order of the Nitro Police Department Civil Service Commission concluding that Petitioner was improperly terminated from his employment as a City of Nitro Police Department police officer, holding that termination was appropriate.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the Commission's reinstatement order was based on substantial evidence and that the circuit court erred by substituting its judgment for that of the Commission. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the Commission's findings were plausible and not clearly wrong; and (2) the circuit court impermissibly substituted judgment for that of the Commission. View "Jarrell vs. The City of Nitro, West Virginia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition and reversed the order of the circuit court denying the motion filed by the Grant County Commission to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, holding that the Commission was not a proper defendant to the statutory claims asserted by Plaintiff.In the underlying complaint, Plaintiff sought to recover damages resulting from the termination of her employment. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not a proper party because it was neither Plaintiff's employer nor was it a health care entity. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission was an improper defendant in this case, and therefore the circuit court committed clear legal error in denying the motion to dismiss; and (2) the circuit court erred by not affording the Commission immunity from Plaintiff's intentional tort claim. View "State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Honorable Lynn A. Nelson" on Justia Law

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 affirmed the decision of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Public Employees Grievance Board (PEGB) determining that Petitioners, employees of the Lincoln County Board of Education, did not qualify as Executive Secretaries under W. Va. 18A-4-8(i)(45), holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioners filed grievances with the PEGB seeking reclassification from Secretary III to Executive Secretary. The PEGB found that Petitioners did not meet section 18A-4-8(i)(45)'s definition of Executive Secretary but that they were entitled to reclassification because they met the Board's definition of Executive Secretary. The circuit court affirmed the PEGB's determination that Petitioners did not qualify as Executive Secretaries under the Code but reversed the decision granting Petitioners' requested classification, concluding that the Board's definition of Executive Secretary contravened state law because it conflicted with section 18A-4-8(i)(45). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board's definition of the Executive Secretary title was unquestionably contrary to the law. View "Owens v. Lincoln County Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying AC&S, Inc.'s motion to dismiss this complaint claiming unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, holding that the circuit court did not err.After his employment with AC&S was terminated, Plaintiff brought this case, asserting claims for unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation. AC&S filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the relevant union and AC&S. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff's individual employment discrimination claims fell outside the scope of the CBA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory and common law employment discrimination claims fell outside the substantive scope of the CBA. View "AC&S Inc., v. George" on Justia Law