Joan S. Lipscomb v. Tucker County Commission, No. 23122 (W. Va. July 11, 1996) (Albright, J.):
Reversing the dismissal of a suit under the Wage Payment and Collection Act instituted because the plaintiff asserted that she had been wrongfully denied longevity pay adjustments where such suit was instituted more than the statutory five years after the first pay period for which she alleged underpayment, the Court held a claim for unpaid wages under the Wage Payment and Collection Act is a continuing claim and a separate cause of action accrues for each pay period the employer fails to pay the wages claimed.
David J. Hosaflook and Kathryn Hosaflook v. Consolidation Coal Company, Ronald Stovash and Thomas Simpson, No. 23045 (W. Va. July 11, 1996) (Albright, J.):
Affirming summary judgment against an employee who filed suit for the tort of outrage after he was laid off as part of a company reduction-in-force while on disability leave for retinitis pigmentosa, the Court held that the four elements of the tort of outrage are (i) extreme and outrageous conduct, (ii) intention or reckless indifference to the infliction of emotional distress, (iii) causal relationship between the conduct and the emotional distress, and (iv) the emotional distress suffered was reasonable under the circumstances.
Mark Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., No. 22493 (W. Va. March 24, 1995) (Cleckley, J.): 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329:
Affirming the award of summary judgment in an employee handbook case, the Court held that for a handbook disclaimer to be valid, it must be sufficiently clear, conspicuous, and understandable so that the employee will know that the handbook provides no protection and is intended to benefit only the employer.
Curniff Rowe, et al. v. Grapevine Corporation, et al., No. 22512 (W. Va. February 16, 1995) (Neely, C.J.): 193 W.Va. 274, 456 S.E.2d 1:
In a foreign migrant worker action under the wage payment and collection act, the Court held that (1) when foreign migrant farm workers are recruited by a corporation to work for individual growers, such growers are joint employers of the workers for purposes of the wage payment and collection act and (2) the ten-year statute of limitations applies for an action on a written contract between a foreign migrant farm workers and a firm which recruits such workers for growers.
Andrew P. Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corporation, No. 21888 (W. Va. May 26, 1994) (Neely, J.): 191 W.Va. 278, 445 S.E.2d 219:
Reversing a $500,000 verdict in a tort of outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress case where the plaintiff complained of the manner in which his employer conducted an internal investigation into allegations of his misconduct, the Court held (1) when an employee's emotional distress arises from his or her discharge, rather than the manner of the discharge, there may be a claim for wrongful discharge, but no cause of action attaches for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) qualified privileges are based upon the public policy that true information be given whenever it is reasonably necessary for the protection of one's own interests, the interests of third persons, or certain interests of the public; (3) a qualified privilege exits when a person communicates a statement in good faith about a subject in which he or she has an interest or duty and limits communication of such statement to those persons who have a legitimate interest in the subject matter; (4) a qualified privilege is not defeated, even if its exercise results in emotional distress and would otherwise be extreme and outrageous, unless it is exercised with a bad motive; and (5) damages for the tort of outrage or for the intentional infliction of emotional distress are essentially punitive damages, serving the same purposes and subject to the same limitations.
Gary Roberts and Jean Ann Roberts v. Leland Adkins and Leland Adkins, d/b/a L. Adkins Oil, No. 21805 (W. Va. May 23, 1994) (Workman, J.): 191 W.Va. 215, 444 S.E.2d 725:
Reinstating a retaliatory discharge action brought by two employees allegedly terminated for purchasing a vehicle from their employer's competitor, the Court held that although W. Va. Code § 21-5-5, which prohibits employers from forcing employees to purchase the employer's goods in lieu of payment of wages, does not support a claim for retaliatory discharge when an employee is terminated for patronizing the competitor of the employer engaged in the same business in which the employee is engaged, it does support a claim for retaliatory discharge when an employee is terminated for patronizing the competitor of the employer engaged in a different business than in which the employee is engaged.
Albert Coerte Voorhees v. Guyan Machinery Company, a West Virginia corporation, and Robert Shell, Jr., No. 21693 (W. Va. March 24, 1994) (Neely, J.): 191 W.Va. 450, 446 S.E.2d 672:
Affirming a $150,000 verdict against the plaintiff's former employer, who offered to reemploy the plaintiff after causing his termination from subsequent employment by aggressively asserting a covenant not to compete, the Court held that if anything has occurred between the parties offensive or degrading to the employee, an offer of further employment will not diminish the employee's recovery if the offer is not accepted.
Mack W. Bailey, et al. v. Sewell Coal Company, a West Virginia corporation, No. 21616 (W. Va. November 2, 1993) (Neely, J.): 190 W.Va. 138, 437 S.E.2d 448:
Rejecting an attempt by laid-off workers to secure severance pay on the ground that the employer had unilaterally awarded severance pay on previous occasions, the Court held that before one can be held to have extended an offer to another, whether such offer is made by word or deed, there must have been some form of communication of the offer; otherwise, there can be no contract.
Gilbert D. Ash, et al. v. Ravens Metal Products, Inc., a corporation, No. 21682 (W. Va. October 15, 1993) (Miller, J.): 190 W.Va. 90, 437 S.E.2d 254:
Rejecting an employer's argument that striking employees' wage payment and collection claim for vacation benefits was barred by its collective bargaining agreement, the Court held that an arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement cannot nullify the statutory rights granted employees under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va. Code § 21-5-1, et seq.
Charles Hogue v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company, No. 21406 (W. Va. June 11, 1993) (Miller, J.): 189 W.Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687:
Rejecting a discharged employee's argument that his employer was bound by an earlier version of an employment handbook which did not contain a disclaimer that such handbook was not intended to create rights of implied contract, the Court held that, as long as reasonable notice is provided, an employer may modify or revoke personnel manuals or policies that grant express or implied rights in order to provide that the revised manual or policy grants no such rights, but establishes an at-will employment relationship.
Beulah Sayres, Timothy Sayres, Jackie Rollyson, Cynthia Sayres, G. Michael Sayres, Donna Sayres, Charles Chesser, Gerald Lee Sayres, Mary Wamsley, and Jean Riffle v. Jerome Bauman, Robert Baum, William Randles, and Cablentertainment, No. 20864 (W. Va. December 18, 1992) (Workman, J.): 188 W.Va. 550, 425 S.E.2d 226:
Reversing a verdict in favor of employees who claimed that the new owners of a cable television company had guaranteed their continued employment in exchange for their agreement to help the new owners through a period of transition, the Court held that an oral promise which has the effect of altering an "at-will" employment relationship must contain terms that are both ascertainable and definitive in nature in order to be enforceable.
James H. Reed v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Inc., Nos. 20924 and 20925 (W. Va. December 18, 1992) (Workman, J.): 188 W.Va. 747, 426 S.E.2d 539:
Reversing a $375,000 verdict in favor of a repair technician who was discharged after he submitted a warranty claim on an air conditioner he was allegedly sold for parts, the Court held that (1) where a retaliatory discharge claim is based upon a warranty claim, the employee has no cause of action pursuant to the Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-101, et seq., unless the employee can demonstrate that a valid warranty was created at the time of the sale of the goods and (2) an express warrant is created, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46-2-313(1), only when the affirmation of fact, promise, or description of the goods is part of the basis of the bargain made by the seller to the buyer about the goods being sold.
Raoul Eddie Lilly v. Overnite Transportation Company, a Virginia corporation, doing business in the State of West Virginia, No. 21003 (W. Va. December 17, 1992) (Workman, J.): 188 W.Va. 538, 425 S.E.2d 214:
Where trucker filed a retaliatory discharge action after he was allegedly terminated for refusing to operate a vehicle with unsafe brakes, the Court held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge may exist under W. Va. Code § 17C-15-1(a), 17C-15-31, where an employee is discharged from employment in retaliation for refusing to operate a motor vehicle with brakes which would create a substantial danger to the safety of the general public.
Deborah Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Services Corp., a West Virginia corporation, dba HCA River Park Hospital, No. 21113 (W. Va. November 25, 1992) (Miller, J.): 188 W.Va. 371, 424 S.E.2d 606:
Affirming the award of summary judgment to a hospital charged with terminating an employee after she refused to allegedly falsify patient charts in anticipation of an impending inspection, the Court held that (1) a complaint for retaliatory discharge must be based upon constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, administrative regulations, or judicial opinions; (2) the "substantial public policy" requirement in a claim for retaliatory discharge must be based upon a concrete policy that provides specific guidance to a reasonable person; and (3) under the facts presented, general admonitions of good care for patients under regulations promulgated by the state board of social workers do not constitute the type of clear public policy upon which a complaint of retaliatory discharge could be based.
Anthony Wilson v. Long John Silver's, Inc., No. 20889 (W. Va. October 23, 1992) (Brotherton, J.): 188 W.Va. 254, 423 S.E.2d 863:
Reversing a judgment in favor of an employee who was discharged for repeated horseplay, which was prohibited in the employee handbook, the Court held (1) where an employment manual provides for immediate discharge for a specific reason, it is irrelevant whether the handbook creates a unilateral contract when that valid, specific reason exists for immediate discharge without recourse to progressive disciplinary procedures, and (2) only if an employee is charged with conduct which does not call for immediate discharge does the issue arise of whether an employee manual provides a unilateral contract when the progressive procedures set forth in such manual are not followed.
John Pannell v. Inco Alloys International, Inc., No. 20888 (W. Va. October 13, 1992) (McHugh, C.J.): 188 W.Va. 76, 422 S.E.2d 643:
Reversing summary judgment in a workers' compensation discrimination case, where the Court found the existence of a genuine of material fact regarding whether the reasons given for the employee's discharge were pretextual, the Court held that 1990 amendments to W. Va. Code § 23-5A-3, which strengthened protections for injured workers receiving compensation benefits, are to be applied prospectively.
Robert L. Mace v. Charleston Area Medical Center Foundation, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, No. 20123 (W. Va. July 15, 1992) (Brotherton, J.): 188 W.Va. 57, 422 S.E.2d 624:
Reinstating a verdict for compensatory damages for an employee who quit after his employer demanded that he submit to a drug test, allegedly precipitated by his employer's displeasure regarding his absence during service in the National Guard, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Harless v. First National Bank of Fairmont, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978) that where an employer's motivation for discharge contravenes some substantial public policy, then the employer may be liable for damages. With respect to the jury's award of punitive damages, however, the Court reversed, again affirming Harless' holding that punitive damages are recoverable solely because of an award for emotional distress, but there must be some evidence that the employer's conduct was wanton, willful or malicious.
Sara W. Slack v. Kanawha County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, etc., et al., No. 20725 (W. Va. July 9, 1992) (Miller, J.): 188 W.Va. 14, 423 S.E.2d 547:
Where employee contended resignation was precipitated by actions taken following electronic surveillance of her office by her supervisor, the Court reinstated a jury verdict for invasion of privacy and remanded for a new trial on her retaliatory discharge and civil conspiracy causes of action, holding that (1) invasion of privacy is governed by the one-year statute of limitations; (2) the discovery rule applies to actions for invasion of privacy, with the statute commencing when the plaintiff knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the invasion and the identity of the perpetrator; (3) an action for constructive discharge may be maintained where an employer creates a hostile working environment based on age, race, gender, or other unlawful discrimination, which becomes so intolerable that a reasonable person would have been compelled to quit, even if the employee cannot prove that the action was taken with the specific intent to cause the employee to quit.
Lowell R. Adkins, et al. v. INCO Alloys International, Inc., etc., et al., No. 20218 (W. Va. April 22, 1992) (Miller, J.): 187 W.Va. 219, 417 S.E.2d 910:
Reversing a $2.6 million verdict for management employees, dismissed pursuant to a reduction-in-force, who complained that the company's action did not follow prior practice with respect to the application of seniority rights, the Court held that (1) where an employee seeks to establish employment rights, either through express or implied promises, such rights must be established by "clear and convincing evidence" and (2) in order to establish implied employment rights through custom, usage, or practice, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the rights were observed a sufficient number of times to indicate a "regular course of business" and under conditions that were "substantially the same" as the present circumstances.
David L. Williamson v. Sharvest Management Company, a corporation, dba Rock Creek Carry-Out, No. 20276 (W. Va. February 28, 1992) (McHugh, J.): 187 W.Va. 30, 415 S.E.2d 271:
Reversing a jury verdict finding that a convenience store manager was wrongfully discharged in violation of a lifetime employment contract based largely upon a piece of paper on which an owner of the store had scribbled the manager's benefits package, the Court held that an implied lifetime employment contract may be enforceable where (1) the employee furnishes sufficient consideration in addition to the performance of his or her employment obligations, or (2) where the intent of the parties is clear and unequivocal.
Saeed Mahmoodian, M.D. v. United Hospital Center, Inc. and Bruce C. Carter; and Ali Rahimian, M.D., and Florencia C. Lopez, M.D., No. 19504 (W. Va. April 25, 1991) (McHugh, J.): 185 W.Va. 59l, 404 S.E.2d 750:
Where a physician's staff privileges had been revoked at a private hospital that contended his disruptive behavior had adversely affected the quality of patient care, the Court held that (1) judicial review of a private hospital's adverse decision regarding a physician's staff privileges is limited to determining whether there has been substantial compliance with the applicable bylaws and whether such bylaws comport with the basic due process requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal; (2) the concept of notice includes a reasonably definite standard in the bylaws proscribing the conduct upon which the adverse decision is based; (3) hospitals may adopt and enforce bylaws providing that disruptive physician conduct that has an adverse impact on patient care may constitute grounds for an adverse decision on staff privileges; and, (4) a private hospital's decision to revoke or adversely affect a physician's staff privileges will be sustained when there is substantial evidence supporting that decision.
Erin Suter v. Harsco Corporation, No. 19424 (W. Va. March 28, 1991) (Neely, J.): 184 W.Va. 734, 403 S.E.2d 751:
Where an employment application, which had been signed by the plaintiff, stated, "I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT . . . MY EMPLOYMENT IS FOR NO DEFINITE PERIOD AND MAY . . . BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE," the Court reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that an employer may protect itself from being bound by the provisions of an employee handbook by having prospective employees acknowledge in the employment application, or by placing a clear and prominent statement in the handbook itself, that employment is terminable at will and that the employer is not bound by the provisions of the employee handbook.
Patricia Ann Paxton v. Paul Crabtree, Administrative Director, West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, State of West Virginia, Velt King, Magistrate of Clay County, No. 19615 (W. Va. December 6, 1990) (Miller, J.): 184 W.Va. 237, 400 S.E.2d 245:
In determining the vicarious liability of an employer whose employee was adjudged to have engaged in unlawful gender discrimination, the Court held that four factors are to be considered: (1) selection and engagement of the employee, (2) payment of compensation, (3) power of dismissal, and (4) power of control, of which only the fourth is essential to the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior.