State of West Virginia ex rel. Diana Lambert, by her next friends, Kathleen Lambert and Robert Lambert v. West Virginia State Board of Education, a corporation, and West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, a corporation, No. 22225 (W. Va. July 20, 1994) (Workman, J.): 191 W.Va. 700, 447 S.E.2d 901:
Directing the State Board of Education and Secondary Schools Activities Commission to provide a sign-language interpreter to a deaf basketball player and to move the girls' basketball season to the winter months beginning with the 1995-96 season, the Court held (1) when a student has a disability requiring special services to enable participation in school-sanctioned extracurricular activities, a request for such services can be made to any school official familiar with the student's needs; (2) once informed, a school official has the duty to inform the county board of education's director of special education of any request for services to enable a handicapped student to participate in school-sanctioned extracurricular activities; and (3) because there is no important governmental purpose served by scheduling the girls' basketball season any time other than the winter months when the boys' basketball season has traditionally been conducted, such scheduling violates the equal protection clause contained in W. Va. Const. art. III, § 10.
Donna Sue O'Dell and Jack O'Dell, her husband v. Town of Gauley Bridge, a West Virginia municipal corporation; and Gauley Bridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., No. 20741; Leon France and Juanita France; and Shawn France, who sues by his guardian and next friend, Juanita France v. The Board of Education of the County of Braxton v. The Velotta Company and Robert Velotta, No. 21112; and Thomas E. Pritchard and Sylvia Pritchard v. The City of Logan, a municipal corporation, No. 21260 (W. Va. November 24, 1992) (Miller, J.): 188 W.Va. 596, 425 S.E.2d 551:
In a case involving the constitutionality of W. Va. Code § 29-12A-5(a)(11), which grants immunity to political subdivisions where persons injured are covered by workers' compensation or employer's liability laws, the Court held that W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 39's prohibition against "special legislation" is subsumed within the equal protection principles of W. Va. Const. art. III, § 10, and that assertions that a statute violates the "special legislation" provision will not be addressed by the Court other than through the application of traditional equal protection analysis.
Erin Israel, by her next friend, Patricia Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission and the Board of Education of Pleasants County, No. 18904 (W. Va. December 20, 1989) (Miller, J.): 182 W.Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480:
Where circuit court had affirmed SSAC prohibition against female students participating on male baseball teams, the Court reversed, holding that, in order to pass constitutional muster under the federal and state constitutions, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achieving those objectives. In adopting this intermediate scrutiny test, the Court expressly overruled its holding in Syl. pt. 2, Peters v. Narick, 165 W. Va. 622, 270 S.E.2d 760 (1980), that gender-based classifications are subject to strict scrutiny. Even applying its newly announced intermediate scrutiny test, however, because baseball and softball are not "substantially equivalent," differing primarily in the level of skill required, the Court held that the SSAC rule prohibiting female participation on male baseball teams violated equal protection principles.
Mary Beth Perilli v. The Board of Education of Monongalia County, No. 18913 (W. Va. November 29, 1989) (Neely, J.): 182 W.Va. 261, 387 S.E.2d 315:
Where plaintiff alleged sex discrimination in the filling of two vacancies in assistant principalships, the Court held that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case, which is akin to a tort action, has a right to a jury trial of factual claims that would entitle the plaintiff to damages for personal injury. Where plaintiff had greater seniority than two successful applicants, and similar qualifications, the Court held that, although relevant statutes do not mandate that the most senior teachers be employed as administrators, the failure to select the most senior applicant for a position can be a relevant piece of evidence in determining whether unlawful discrimination occurred.