Category Archives: Harless wrongful discharge

Harless wrongful discharge, Retaliation claims, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Whitle blower claims (including Harless), WV Human Rights Act

Wrongful Termination: What It Is and What It Isn’t

Leave a comment

Los­ing a job is tough, but not every ter­mi­na­tion is ille­gal. The term “wrong­ful ter­mi­na­tion” gets thrown around a lot, but in legal terms, it has a spe­cif­ic mean­ing. Both employ­ers and employ­ees need to under­stand what actu­al­ly qual­i­fies as wrong­ful ter­mi­na­tion under fed­er­al and West Vir­ginia law.

What Is Wrongful Termination?

Wrong­ful ter­mi­na­tion hap­pens when an employ­er fires an employ­ee in vio­la­tion of a law, con­tract, or pub­lic pol­i­cy. This can include:

  • Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Fir­ing some­one based on race, gen­der, age, dis­abil­i­ty, or oth­er pro­tect­ed char­ac­ter­is­tics vio­lates fed­er­al and state anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws (42 U.S.C. §2000e‑2; W. Va. Code §16B-17–9).
  • Retal­i­a­tion: Employ­ers can’t fire an employ­ee for report­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion, work­place safe­ty vio­la­tions, or engag­ing in oth­er pro­tect­ed activ­i­ties (42 U.S.C. 2000e‑3(a); W. Va. Code §16B-17–9(7)).
  • Breach of con­tract: If an employ­ee has a writ­ten con­tract or even an implied con­tract promis­ing job secu­ri­ty, a ter­mi­na­tion out­side the agreed terms may be wrong­ful (Cook v. Heck’s Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453 (W. Va. 1986)).
  • Pub­lic pol­i­cy vio­la­tions: Employ­ers can’t fire employ­ees for rea­sons that vio­late pub­lic pol­i­cy, such as refus­ing to engage in ille­gal activ­i­ties (Har­less v. First Nat’l Bank, 246 S.E.2d 270 (W. Va. 1978)).
Con­tin­ue read­ing Wrong­ful Ter­mi­na­tion: What It Is and What It Isn’t →
Harless wrongful discharge, Seminars

Drew Capuder Will Be Speaking At Upcoming West Virginia Employment Lawyers Association Conference

Leave a comment

I look for­ward to speak­ing at the West Vir­ginia Employ­ment Lawyers Asso­ci­a­tion’s annu­al con­fer­ence on Octo­ber 12 and 13, 2018, at Hawk’s Nest State Park in Anst­ed, West Virginia.

I will be speak­ing and pre­sent­ing an arti­cle on the Har­less wrong­ful dis­charge doc­trine, which deals with ter­mi­na­tion of employ­ees where the employ­er’s moti­va­tion alleged­ly vio­lates a sub­stan­tial pub­lic policy.

I will also be pre­sent­ing an arti­cle and par­tic­i­pat­ing in a pan­el dis­cus­sion on social net­work­ing & elec­tron­ic dis­cov­ery issues.

Here is infor­ma­tion on the con­fer­ence, join­ing the WVELA, and attend­ing the conference.

Harless wrongful discharge, Hostile work environment, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Medical Industry Litigation, Pleading requirements, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, WV Human Rights Act, WV Supreme Court

Sorry boss, I didn’t know you were having sex in the office!!

1 Comment

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly issued an opin­ion deal­ing with one of those stereo­typ­i­cal­ly awk­ward sit­u­a­tions, where an employ­ee alleged­ly stum­bles into a room where the boss is hav­ing sex with a co-work­er. The deci­sion was  Roth v. DeFe­lice­Care, Inc., 226 W. Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (June 8, 2010) (per curi­am). It was a 3–2 deci­sion, in which the 3‑vote major­i­ty con­sist­ed of Jus­tices Robin Davis, Mar­garet Work­man, and  Thomas McHugh. Jus­tices Menis Ketchum and Brent Ben­jamin dis­sent­ed, and Jus­tice Ketchum wrote a dis­sent­ing opinion.

The Facts–Sex at Work

These are the facts accord­ing to the com­plaint in the law­suit: Tri­cia Roth was a res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­pist work­ing at DeFe­lice­Care, Inc. in Ohio Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, and she was about to go on vaca­tion. She was direct­ed by Leslie DeFe­lice (the male boss/owner) to come to work some­time dur­ing the week­end pre­ced­ing her vaca­tion in June 2006. She was not told a spe­cif­ic time to come to work dur­ing that week­end. When she came to work as ordered, she “observed Defen­dant [Leslie] DeFe­lice and/or Michelle Kel­ly par­tial­ly clothed and in a com­pro­mis­ing posi­tion”. Mr. DeFe­lice instruct­ed Ms. Roth to go into a con­fer­ence room and wait–meanwhile Mr. DeFe­lice and the oth­er employ­ee got all their clothes back on. Mr. DeFe­lice then talked to Ms. Roth and told her to for­get about what she had just seen, and threat­ened Ms. Ross with the loss of her res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­py license and the loss of her employment.

Ms. Roth then went on vaca­tion. When she got back from vaca­tion and returned to work, she had a meet­ing with Mr. DeFe­lice that did­n’t go well. Ms. Roth told Mr. DeFe­lice that she had­n’t told any­one about his sex­u­al encounter at work. Mr. DeFe­lice pro­ceed­ed to fire Ms. Roth because “he did not like how she was dressed” and “he did not like the style[/]color of her hair”.

Ms. Roth Files Suit–Case Dismissed

Ms. Roth then filed suit on legal the­o­ries cen­ter­ing around sex dis­crim­i­na­tion and sex­u­al harass­ment, and–bada bing!–the case prompt­ly got dismissed.

Ms. Roth’s com­plaint (the doc­u­ment which starts the law­suit and describes the plain­tiff’s alle­ga­tions) focused on the sex­u­al inci­dent I have described above, but also made alle­ga­tions about oth­er sex­u­al harassment–I will dis­cuss those details below.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Sor­ry boss, I didn’t know you were hav­ing sex in the office!! →