Charleston Acad. of Beauty Culture, Inc. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n
| Decision Date | 25 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-1286,11-1286 |
| Parties | Charleston Academy of Beauty Culture, Inc., Judy Hall, Owner, and Cherie Bishop, Instructor, in their individual capacities, Petitioners below, Petitioners v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, and Harry Walter Robinson and Tyleemah Edwards, Respondents below, Respondents |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
(Kanawha County 09-AA-168 & 169)
Petitioners, Charleston Academy of Beauty Culture, Inc. ("the beauty school"), Judy Hall, and Cherie Bishop, by counsel, Stephen L. Hall, appeal from the Kanawha County Circuit Court's order dated August 8, 2011, upholding the Final Order of respondent, the West Virginia Human Rights Commission ("the Commission"), finding that petitioners were liable for unlawful race discrimination and reprisal. The Commission, on behalf of respondents Harry Walter Robinson ("Robinson") and Tyleemah Edwards ("Edwards"), has responded, by counsel, Jamie S. Alley and Paul R. Sheridan.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Robinson (now deceased) and Edwards are former students of the beauty school, and they are both African-American. Robinson and Edwards filed complaints with the Commission asserting various claims against petitioners related to racial discrimination and racial harassment. Edwards also alleged that she was a target of retaliation by Hall and the beauty school in reprisal for having filed a complaint of race discrimination with the West Virginia Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists. Petitioners denied all allegations.
The Commission found the beauty school to be a place of public accommodation with regard to the customers who receive services in the area of cosmetology and for the students enrolled in itseducational programs. In its Final Order dated September 2, 2009,1 the Commission affirmed the Chief Administrative Law Judge's Final Decision dated May 29, 2009, finding in favor of Robinson and Edwards. Petitioners appealed the Commission's Final Order to the Kanawha County Circuit Court. In its order dated August 8, 2011, the Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's Final Order.
In appeals of an administrative order from a circuit court, Ford Motor Credit Co. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n, 225 W.Va. 766, 775, 696 S.E.2d 282, 291 (2010). With these standards in mind, and having considered the parties' arguments, the appendix record, and the supplemental appendix record, the Court finds no error and incorporates, adopts, and attaches hereto the Circuit Court's "Opinion and Order Affirming the Final Administrative Order of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission" dated August 8, 2011.
V.
TYLEEMAH EDWARDS, Respondent.
and CHARLESTON ACADEMY OF BEAUTY CULTURE, INC., d/b/a CHARLESTON SCHOOL OF BEAUTY CULTURE, INC., JUDY HALL, Owner, and CHERIE BISHOP, Instructor, in their individual capacities, Petitioners.
V.
HARRY WALTER ROBINSON, Respondent.
AS DECIDED BY THE WEST VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
(The Honorable Charles E. King, Jr.)
(The Honorable Charles E. King, Jr.)
These matters came before the Court on appeal from a consolidated Final Order of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission [hereafter referred to as Human Rights Commission or Commission] dated September 2, 2009, pursuant to West Virginia Code §5-11-11(a).
The underlying cases involve the administrative litigation and appeal of two separate human rights complaints filed by Tyleemah Edwards and Harry Walter Robinson [hereinafter referred to individually as Complainant Edwards and Complainant Robinson and collectively as Complainants] against the Petitioners, Charleston Academy of Beauty Culture, Inc., d/b/a Charleston School of Beauty Culture, Inc., Judy Hall, Owner, and Cherie Bishop, Instructor, in their individual capacities [hereinafter referred to individually as Petitioner beauty school or CABC, Petitioner Bishop and Petitioner Hall and collectively as Petitioners].
The Complainants below are former students at the Petitioner beauty school. They each filed complaints at the Commission alleging that while they were students at CABC, they were subjected to race discrimination and racial harassment. Complainant Edwards' human rights complaint included an allegation that she was unlawfully expelled from CABC in reprisal for engaging in the protected activity of complaining about race discrimination at CABC to the West Virginia Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists.
The Commission docketed complaints on behalf of Robinson and Edwards. Multiple amendments of the complaints occurred in accord with the requirements of the Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the West Virginia Human Rights Commission. The amendments operated to properly name the Petitioner beauty school and to amplify and provide content to the Complainants" allegations. Ultimately, the Commission issued a probable cause determination in both cases, and they were transferred to an administrative law judge for adjudication. The two complaints, styled Tyleemah Edwards v. Charleston Academy of Beauty Culture. Inc.. d/b/a Charleston School of Beauty Culture. Inc., Judy Hall. Owner, and Cherie Bishop, Instructor, Docket No. PAR-454-04, and Harry Walter Robinson v. Charleston Academy of Beauty Culture, Inc., d/b/a Charleston School of Beauty Culture, Inc., Judv Hall, Owner, and Cherie Bishop, Instructor, Docket No. PAR-351-04, were consolidated for public hearing.
In the administrative proceeding below, Petitioners contended that CABC is a place of public accommodations within the meaning of the West Virginia Human Rights Act only with respect to its patrons, and that it is not a place of public accommodations with regard to its enrolled students. On that basis, Petitioners asserted that the Commission lackedjurisdiction to act upon the Complainants' allegations. Petitioners also denied that either Complainant experienced a racially hostile environment, race discrimination, or reprisal during their enrollment at CABC. Petitioners also raised procedural and constitutional challenges to the Commission proceeding.
In her May 29, 2009, consolidated Final Decision, Chief Administrative Law Judge Phyllis H. Carter [hereinafter referred to as ALJ] determined that CABC is a "place of public accommodations" within the meaning of the West Virginia Human Rights Act with regard to both patrons, and students. She concluded that the Commission had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioners violated the West Virginia Human Rights Act and engaged in race discrimination. The ALJ determined that this "discriminatory conduct infringed upon the Complainants' enjoyment of the accommodations, privileges, advantages and services which are available to students at CABC and deprived Complainant Robinson and Complainant Edwards of the educational opportunities to which they were entitled." (Final Decision, p. 6). The ALJ also determined that Petitioners Hall and CABC failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into Mr. Robinson's complaint of racial harassment and facilitated the existence of a racially hostile environment. (Final Decision, p. 105). The Final Decision further found that Petitioner Bishop violated the West Virginia Human Rights Act by "engaging in racial threats, harassment and discrimination" toward the Complainants. Id. Finally, the ALJ found that Petitioners Hall and CABC retaliated against Complainant Edwards for making a complaint about the race discrimination she experienced to the West Virginia Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists. The retaliation included unlawfully expelling Complainant Edwards and retaining her property. Id.
In accord with her determination, the ALJ issued a cease and desist order against the Petitioners ordering them to cease engaging in unlawful discriminatory conduct. The Final Decision also awarded Mr. Robinson and Ms, Edwards each incidental damages, as well as other relief. Petitioners were ordered to pay the Commission's court reporting and witness fee costs incurred in conducting the public hearing.
Petitioners filed an agency-level appeal contesting the ALJ's Final Decision. On review, the Commission affirmed the consolidated Final Decision and incorporated byreference the factual findings and conclusions of law set forth by the ALJ into the September 2, 2009, Final Order of the agency. It is from this Final Order that the instant appeal is taken.
This Court has reviewed the Petition of Appeal, the Response of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission, the Petitioners'...
To continue reading
Request your trial