Category Archives: WV Human Rights Act

Joint Employment, National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Board, WV Human Rights Act

Understanding Joint Employment Under Federal and West Virginia Law

Leave a comment

If you work in health­care, hos­pi­tal­i­ty, or any indus­try that relies on staffing agen­cies, fran­chise mod­els, or shared employ­ment struc­tures, you’ve like­ly encoun­tered the con­cept of joint employ­ment. But what does it actu­al­ly mean? And more impor­tant­ly, how could it affect you or your clients?

Joint employ­ment occurs when mul­ti­ple entities—like a com­pa­ny and a staffing agency, or a fran­chisor and a franchisee—share con­trol over an employee’s work. That shared con­trol can lead to shared lia­bil­i­ty, espe­cial­ly in wage-and-hour dis­putes, dis­crim­i­na­tion claims, and union mat­ters. With recent changes to fed­er­al rules and ongo­ing court deci­sions, under­stand­ing joint employ­ment has nev­er been more important.

What Is Joint Employment?

Sim­ply put, joint employ­ment hap­pens when two or more enti­ties have sig­nif­i­cant con­trol over the terms and con­di­tions of a worker’s job. That could include con­trol over sched­ules, pay rates, hir­ing, fir­ing, or dai­ly super­vi­sion. For legal pur­pos­es, both enti­ties may be con­sid­ered “employ­ers,” mean­ing they’re both respon­si­ble for com­ply­ing with employ­ment laws.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Under­stand­ing Joint Employ­ment Under Fed­er­al and West Vir­ginia Law →
Americans with Disabilities Act, Reasonable Accommodations, WV Human Rights Act

Understanding the Interactive Process Under the ADA: A Two-Way Street

Leave a comment

Let’s talk about a con­cept in employ­ment law that often gets over­looked or misunderstood—the “inter­ac­tive process” under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA). If you rep­re­sent employ­ers or employ­ees, or you’re an HR pro­fes­sion­al nav­i­gat­ing accom­mo­da­tion requests, this process is absolute­ly cen­tral to ADA compliance.

It’s also one of the more com­mon areas where employ­ers get tripped up—not nec­es­sar­i­ly by refus­ing to accom­mo­date a dis­abil­i­ty, but by fail­ing to com­mu­ni­cate prop­er­ly and in good faith.

What is the Interactive Process?

Under the ADA, once an employ­er becomes aware that an employ­ee needs an accom­mo­da­tion for a dis­abil­i­ty, the law requires the employ­er to engage in an “inter­ac­tive process” with the employ­ee to iden­ti­fy a rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tion. The statu­to­ry basis is 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), which defines dis­crim­i­na­tion to include not mak­ing “rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions to the known phys­i­cal or men­tal lim­i­ta­tions of an oth­er­wise qual­i­fied indi­vid­ual with a dis­abil­i­ty,” unless the employ­er can show undue hardship.

The Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­ni­ty Com­mis­sion (EEOC) explains that this is not a one-time conversation—it’s a col­lab­o­ra­tive dia­logue aimed at iden­ti­fy­ing and imple­ment­ing accom­mo­da­tions that allow the employ­ee to per­form the essen­tial func­tions of their job.\

The gov­ern­ing reg­u­la­tion, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), puts it this way:

“To deter­mine the appro­pri­ate rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tion it may be nec­es­sary for the cov­ered enti­ty to ini­ti­ate an infor­mal, inter­ac­tive process with the indi­vid­ual with a dis­abil­i­ty in need of the accommodation.”.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Under­stand­ing the Inter­ac­tive Process Under the ADA: A Two-Way Street →
Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability discrimination, WV Human Rights Act

Workplace Disability Discrimination: Understanding Rights and Employer Obligations

1 Comment

Dis­abil­i­ty dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place is an issue that affects both employ­ees and employ­ers. With the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA) set­ting the legal frame­work, busi­ness­es must nav­i­gate rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions while ensur­ing com­pli­ance. Employ­ees, on the oth­er hand, need to under­stand their rights and what steps to take if they expe­ri­ence dis­crim­i­na­tion. Let’s break it down.

What Is Disability Discrimination?

Dis­abil­i­ty dis­crim­i­na­tion occurs when an employ­er treats an employ­ee or job appli­cant unfa­vor­ably because of a dis­abil­i­ty. This can include:

  • Refus­ing to hire a qual­i­fied appli­cant due to a disability.
  • Fail­ing to pro­vide rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions that would enable an employ­ee to per­form essen­tial job functions.
  • Wrong­ful­ly ter­mi­nat­ing or demot­ing an employ­ee based on their disability.
  • Harass­ing an employ­ee due to their dis­abil­i­ty or med­ical condition.

The ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12112) pro­hibits dis­crim­i­na­tion against qual­i­fied indi­vid­u­als with dis­abil­i­ties in all aspects of employ­ment, includ­ing hir­ing, fir­ing, pro­mo­tions, and job assignments.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Work­place Dis­abil­i­ty Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Under­stand­ing Rights and Employ­er Oblig­a­tions →
Age Discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WV Human Rights Act, WV Human Rights Commission

The Roles of the EEOC and the West Virginia Human Rights Commission in Workplace Discrimination Claims

Leave a comment

Work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion is a seri­ous issue, and employ­ees who believe they’ve been treat­ed unfair­ly often turn to the Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­ni­ty Com­mis­sion (“EEOC”) or the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion (“HRC”) for help. But what exact­ly do the EEOC and HRC do, and how does the com­plaint process work? Whether you’re an employ­er try­ing to stay com­pli­ant or an employ­ee con­sid­er­ing fil­ing a claim, it is impor­tant to under­stand the EEOC’s and HRC’s roles.

What Is the EEOC?

The EEOC is the fed­er­al agency respon­si­ble for enforc­ing anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws in the work­place. It inves­ti­gates com­plaints of dis­crim­i­na­tion based on race, sex, age, dis­abil­i­ty, nation­al ori­gin, reli­gion, and oth­er pro­tect­ed char­ac­ter­is­tics under laws like:

  • Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑2)
  • The Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 623)
  • The Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12112)

The agency also enforces laws pro­hibit­ing retal­i­a­tion, mean­ing an employ­er can’t pun­ish an employ­ee for fil­ing a com­plaint or par­tic­i­pat­ing in an investigation.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The Roles of the EEOC and the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion in Work­place Dis­crim­i­na­tion Claims →
Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WV Human Rights Act

Workplace Harassment: What Employers and Employees Need to Know

Leave a comment

Work­place harass­ment is a seri­ous issue that can lead to legal trou­ble for employ­ers and cre­ate a tox­ic work envi­ron­ment for employ­ees. While most peo­ple think of harass­ment in terms of sex­u­al mis­con­duct, the law cov­ers a much broad­er range of behav­iors. Under­stand­ing what con­sti­tutes work­place harass­ment and how to han­dle it is cru­cial for both employ­ers and employees.

What Is Workplace Harassment?

Harass­ment is defined as unwel­come con­duct based on race, col­or, reli­gion, sex (includ­ing preg­nan­cy, gen­der iden­ti­ty, and sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion), nation­al ori­gin, age (40 or old­er), dis­abil­i­ty, or genet­ic infor­ma­tion (42 U.S.C. §2000e‑2(a)). It becomes ille­gal when:

  • Endur­ing the offen­sive con­duct becomes a con­di­tion of con­tin­ued employ­ment, or
  • The con­duct is severe or per­va­sive enough to cre­ate a hos­tile work envi­ron­ment (Mer­i­tor Sav. Bank v. Vin­son, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)).

Harass­ment isn’t just about inap­pro­pri­ate jokes or unwant­ed advances—it can include threats, intim­i­da­tion, offen­sive images, or even work­place poli­cies that dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly affect cer­tain groups.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Work­place Harass­ment: What Employ­ers and Employ­ees Need to Know →
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 →
Pending legislation, Race discrimination, Retaliation claims, WV Human Rights Act, WV Legislation

Legislative Update: Insurance industry seeks amendment to West Virginia Human Rights Act

2 Comments

Insur­ance com­pa­nies have been urg­ing the West Vir­ginia Leg­is­la­ture to pass leg­is­la­tion to over­turn the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Michael v. Appalachi­an Heat­ing, LLC, 701 S.E.2d 116 (June 11, 2010). In Michael, the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court held that the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act pro­hib­it­ed dis­crim­i­na­tion by an insur­ance com­pa­ny in set­tling claims cov­ered by an insur­ance policy.

The Michael Decision

Gen­er­al­ly, the Human Rights Act pro­hibits dis­crim­i­na­tion (1) in the work­place, (2) in places of pub­lic accom­mo­da­tion (like hotels, shop­ping cen­ters), and (3) in con­nec­tion with trans­ac­tions involv­ing hous­ing and real estate (like rent­ing apart­ments and buy­ing houses).

But at issue in Michael was sec­tion 5–11‑9(7) of the Human Rights Act, which was not lim­it­ed to those three cat­e­gories of activ­i­ty. Here is the rel­e­vant lan­guage in sec­tion 5–11‑9(7)(A);

It shall be an unlaw­ful dis­crim­i­na­to­ry prac­tice [based on race, reli­gion, col­or, nation­al ori­gin, ances­try, sex, age, and disability] …

(7) For any per­son, employ­er, employ­ment agency, labor orga­ni­za­tion, own­er, real estate bro­ker, real estate sales­man or finan­cial insti­tu­tion to:

(A) Engage in [1] any form of threats or reprisal, or to [2] engage in, or hire, or con­spire with oth­ers to com­mit acts or activ­i­ties of any nature, the pur­pose of which is to harass, degrade, embar­rass or cause phys­i­cal harm or eco­nom­ic loss or [3] to aid, abet, incite, com­pel or coerce any per­son to engage in any of the unlaw­ful dis­crim­i­na­to­ry prac­tices defined in this section .…

In sub­part (7)(A) above I have brack­et­ed the three spe­cif­ic caus­es of action (legal the­o­ries) which the Supreme Court said are dis­cernible in sub­part (7)(A). I have also bold­ed the sec­ond cause of action, which was the key cause of action at issue in the Michael case.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Leg­isla­tive Update: Insur­ance indus­try seeks amend­ment to West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act →
Attorney's Fees, Back and Front Pay Issues, Constructive discharge, Emotional Distress Damages, Employment policies, Hostile work environment, Prompt remedial action, Race discrimination, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, WV Human Rights Act, WV Human Rights Commission, WV Supreme Court

The disastrous consequences of the N‑word in the workplace. Just ask Dr. Laura!

1 Comment

Okay, this arti­cle has noth­ing to do with Dr. Lau­ra Sch­lessinger and her “rant” in which she used the N‑word repeat­ed­ly on her radio pro­gram when respond­ing to an African-Amer­i­can caller. But the ensu­ing con­tro­ver­sy (see arti­cles for and against Dr. Lau­ra), and her deci­sion to end her long-run­ning radio pro­gram, high­light the extra­or­di­nary sig­nif­i­cance of the N‑word term in Amer­i­can society.

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly dealt with the N‑word in a case that high­lights the great risks for employ­ers when that word enters the workplace.

In PAR Elec­tri­cal Con­trac­tors, Inc. v. Bev­elle , 225 W. Va. 624, 695 S.E.2d 854, 2010 WL 2244096 (June 3, 2010) (per curi­am), the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court dealt with a claim of a racial­ly based hos­tile work envi­ron­ment under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act, and con­clud­ed that the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion was jus­ti­fied in find­ing for the employ­ee. The deci­sion was unan­i­mous. Click here for the WV Human Rights Com­mis­sion’s deci­sion which was affirmed by the WV Supreme Court.

A Single Day, With the N‑Word Again and Again

PAR Elec­tri­cal was build­ing “giant tow­ers” for a high volt­age elec­tri­cal trans­mis­sion line. Richard Wayne Bev­elle was hired by PAR Elec­tri­cal on March 22, 2005, and, after work­ing as a “ground­man” assem­bling the tow­er bases, was assigned to load heli­copters with parts to con­struct the tow­ers (this heli­copter job was described as a “gravy job” by the Human Rights Com­mis­sion). Mr. Bev­elle is African-American.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The dis­as­trous con­se­quences of the N‑word in the work­place. Just ask Dr. Lau­ra! →
Age Discrimination, Back and Front Pay Issues, Emotional Distress Damages, Jury verdicts, Punitive damages, Result for Employee, WV Human Rights Act

Charleston, WV Jury Awards $1.7m in Age Discrimination Case, 10–1‑09

Leave a comment

On Octo­ber 1, 2009, a jury in Charleston, Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia returned a ver­dict in an age dis­crim­i­na­tion case, award­ing James Nagy a total of $1,750,450.

The Lawsuit

James Nagy filed suit in Charleston in March 2008 against West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny, alleg­ing that he was fired in March 2007 because of his age at 53, after 23 years of employment.

James Nagy was rep­re­sent­ed by Maria W. Hugh­es and Stephen Weber at Kay Cas­to & Chaney PLLC. West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny was rep­re­sent­ed by Mychal Schulz at Dins­more & Shohl LLC.

The case is pend­ing in Cir­cuit Court in Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, before Judge Jen­nifer Bai­ley-Walk­er.

The Verdict

That $1,750,450 ver­dict con­sist­ed of:

Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

Under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act (which pro­hibits age and oth­er forms of dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place), Nagy’s coun­sel filed a motion addi­tion­al­ly request­ing attor­neys’ fees and expenses.

Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er award­ed the plain­tiff total attorney’s fees of $177,772.50, and $8,855.33 in expenses.

Appeal

The Defen­dant is in the process of appeal­ing.  The issue of attor­neys’ fees was resolved by Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er on June 8, 2010, so the appeal process is in its ear­ly stages as of the date of this arti­cle being updat­ed (July 31, 2010). As things devel­op in the appeal, I will update this article.

July 31, 2010

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!! →