Boone v. Activate Healthcare, LLC

• Decision Date: 11 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-1007,19-1007
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Diana BOONE, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner v. ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant Below, Respondent

859 S.E.2d 419

Diana BOONE, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

v.ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant Below, Respondent

No. 19-1007

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: March 2, 2021

Filed: June 11, 2021

Walt Auvil, Esq., Kirk Auvil, Esq., The Employment Law Center, PLLC, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

David A. Sims, Esq., Law Offices of David A. Sims, PLLC, Vienna, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici Curiae West Virginia, Employment Lawyers Association and West Virginia Association for Justice.

J. David Fenwick, Esq., Stephanie H. Daly, Esq., Goodwin & Goodwin, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent.

WALKER, Justice:

In 2018, Petitioner Diana Boone was working in the casting department at Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC (Constellium) and requested a change in her work duties to accommodate a medical condition. As part of that process, she was directed to Activate Healthcare, LLC (Activate), Constellium's on-site medical provider, for a Physical Capacity Report (PCR). During a series of interactions with Ms. Boone, Activate issued more than one PCR. Eventually, Constellium terminated Ms. Boone's employment based on one of the PCRs. Ms. Boone returned to work a few weeks later in a different department at Constellium. She filed a grievance seeking lost wages for her break in employment, but that grievance was denied. So, she sued Constellium, Activate, and others alleging retaliation and discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA).¹

In this appeal, we consider the sole issue of whether the Circuit Court of Jackson County erred in dismissing Ms. Boone's claims against Activate under Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. While this Court has recognized that the WVHRA "shall be liberally construed to accomplish its objectives and purposes[,]"² we agree with the circuit court that Ms. Boone's factual allegations against Activate were insufficient to establish a claim of aiding and abetting under the WVHRA.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2016, Ms. Boone was employed by Constellium, an aluminum manufacturer in Ravenswood, West Virginia, that produces sheet and coil aluminum for aerospace, transportation, defense, marine, and industrial uses. Constellium maintained an on-site medical facility for its employees. Activate operated that facility and was responsible for preparing PCRs for employees seeking worksite accommodations for disabilities or other medical issues, among other things. Ms. Boone contends here, as she did below, that Activate failed to prepare an accurate PCR for her, and in so doing, aided and abetted Constellium in its decision to wrongfully terminate her employment in violation of the WVHRA. Ms. Boone alleged the following facts in support of this argument.

In 2017, Ms. Boone was working in Constellium's casting department. As part of her work, Ms. Boone was required to operate an overhead crane, suspended from a warehouse ceiling, to move manufactured aluminum products. In the spring of 2018, two supervisors informed Ms. Boone that she was required to begin training to operate the overhead crane. She refused, referencing a prior negative experience she had while operating the crane. She then obtained a temporary PCR excusing her from operating the crane for a short time. Later, a supervisor asked whether Ms. Boone intended to seek a permanent PCR, and she replied in the affirmative.

On June 25, 2018, Ms. Boone went to Activate to obtain the permanent PCR. She presented a note from her personal physician that diagnosed her with acrophobia—a fear of heights—and restricted her from "training in high positions[.]" Activate did not take the physician's note, but issued two successive PCRs restricting Ms. Boone from working at specified heights.³ Upon reviewing these PCRs, Sherry Gordon, who worked in human resources, informed Ms. Boone that Constellium could not accommodate her and had no work for her, as all of its positions required employees to be able to work at a certain height.⁴ She then sent Ms. Boone home. Later that day, Kevin Gaul, of the United Steelworkers union, emailed Ms. Gordon, asking why Constellium denied Ms. Boone's accommodation request. In response, Ms. Gordon explained that the PCRs imposed height restrictions that Constellium could not accommodate, so Ms. Boone "would not be able to perform her job, thus she disqualified herself from her job[.]"

The following day, on June 26, 2018, Ms. Boone and Mr. Gaul requested a new PCR from Activate that only restricted Ms. Boone from operating the overhead crane. One of Activate's physician assistants issued the requested PCR. From the record, it appears neither Ms. Boone nor Mr. Gaul had any contact with Constellium's human resources department on June 26.

On June 27, 2018, union representatives met with Constellium CEO Lloyd Stemple and Human Resources Director Joe Martucci to discuss Ms. Boone's return to work. In the meeting, the union representatives presented the most recent PCR restricting Ms. Boone only from operating the overhead crane and asked that Constellium grant Ms. Boone's requested accommodation. Mr. Stemple and Mr. Martucci declined to do so, informing the union representatives that two other employees with more seniority than Ms. Boone were already receiving accommodations in the casting department.⁵ But, Mr. Stemple and Mr. Martucci agreed to transfer Ms. Boone from the casting department to the finishing department. Pursuant to this agreement, Ms. Boone returned to work in the finishing department eighteen days later on July 13, 2018.

Upon her return to work, Ms. Boone filed a grievance seeking lost wages for the time between her removal from the casting department and her resuming work in the finishing department. Constellium denied the grievance on August 30, 2018, noting that "[t]he employee was unable to perform all of the duties associated with her position and the company was (and continues to) accommodate two employees senior to her in the department. Since she was unable to work there is no contractual obligation to pay for duties not performed."

On October 29, 2018, Ms. Boone sued Constellium, Activate (first erroneously named USIMC of West Virginia), and others, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the WVHRA.⁶ Ms. Boone's single cause of action against Activate alleged that "Activate Healthcare aided and abetted [Constellium's] refusal to accommodate [Ms. Boone's] disabilities as described herein above by refusing to review [Ms. Boone's] medical documentation and by repeatedly issuing erroneous ‘PCRs’ without interacting with Ms. Boone regarding her actual accommodation request."

Activate moved to dismiss Ms. Boone's claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss on September 30, 2019, finding that Ms. Boone failed to plead a claim of aiding and abetting as to Activate that could survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, the circuit court found that Ms. Boone's complaint failed to allege that "Activate had any involvement in Constellium's decision regarding [her] employment, which occurred after Activate provided [Ms. Boone] her desired medical restriction." The circuit court also found that Ms. Boone's claim was a medical negligence claim governed by the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA)⁷ and that Ms. Boone had failed to allege facts to establish such a claim. Ms. Boone now appeals the circuit court's order granting the motion to dismiss.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has held that "[a]ppellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo. "⁸ Further, we have held that, "[t]he trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief."⁹ Finally, we have noted that courts must construe "the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."¹⁰ With these standards on mind, we proceed to address the arguments on appeal.

III. ANALYSIS

Ms. Boone first argues that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review in evaluating Activate's motion to dismiss. Ms. Boone also asserts that she properly alleged that Activate aided and abetted Constellium in wrongfully terminating her employment in violation of the WVHRA.¹¹

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard of Review

Ms. Boone first asserts that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review in granting Activate's motion to dismiss because its dismissal order bears no evidence that it applied the proper standard. Activate counters that it argued the appropriate standard of review before the circuit court and that the order clearly demonstrates that the appropriate standard was used. We agree with Activate.

We readily dispose of Ms. Boone's argument on this point because the circuit court's order clearly states the standard of review it used. In relevant part, the order states:

Dismissal of a civil action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief." Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977). The Court must construe "the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Murphy v. Smallridge, 196 W. Va. 35, 36, 468 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1996) (citing [State ex rel. ] McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, 194 W. Va. 770, 775-76, 461 S.E.2d 516, 521-22 (1995) ).

Undeniably, the circuit court identified the correct standard of review. As evidenced by our own citation to this standard above, this Court has long...