CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith
Decision Date | 07 June 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11–0694.,11–0694. |
Citation | 115 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 488,729 S.E.2d 151,229 W.Va. 316 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Virginia Corporation, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. Angela SMITH, Plaintiff Below, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1.“The appellate standard of review for an order granting or denying a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure[1998] is de novo.”Syllabus point 1, Fredeking v. Tyler, 224 W.Va. 1, 680 S.E.2d 16(2009).
2.Syllabus point 2, Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln–Mercury, Inc.,223 W.Va. 209, 672 S.E.2d 345(2008).
3.“In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved.”Syllabus point 5, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593(1983).
4.“When a case involving conflicting testimony and circumstances has been fairly tried, under proper instructions, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside unless plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence or without sufficient evidence to support it.”Syllabus point 4, Laslo v. Griffith, 143 W.Va. 469, 102 S.E.2d 894(1958).
5.“To establish a claim for sexual harassment under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code, 5–11–1 et seq., based upon a hostile or abusive work environment, a plaintiff-employee must prove that (1) the subject conduct was unwelcome; (2) it was based on the sex of the plaintiff; (3) it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff's conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment; and (4) it was imputable on some factual basis to the employer.”Syllabus point 5, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741(1995).
6.“An employee may state a claim for hostile environment sexual harassment if unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”Syllabus point 7, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741(1995).
7.“A supervisory employee can state a claim for relief against an employer on the basis of a hostile work environment created by one or more subordinate employees if the employer knew or should have known about the offending conduct, yet failed to take swift and effective measures reasonably calculated to end the harassment.”Syllabus point 9, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741(1995).
8.“Once a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case introduces evidence that demonstrates the four elements set forth in syllabus point five of Hanlon v. Chambers,195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741(1995), he/she has proven a prima facie case of sexual harassment, which must then be presented to the jury.”Syllabus point 5, Akers v. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc., 215 W.Va. 346, 599 S.E.2d 769(2004).
9.Syllabus point 6, Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 459 S.E.2d 374(1995).
10.Syllabus point 4, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163(1995).
11.Syllabus point 1, in part, Moran v. Atha Trucking, Inc.,208 W.Va. 379, 540 S.E.2d 903(1997).
12.“[T]he question of whether a jury was properly instructed is a question of law, and the review is de novo.”Syllabus point 1, in part, State v. Hinkle,200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257(1996).
13.Syllabus point 6, Perrine v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 225 W.Va. 482, 694 S.E.2d 815(2010).
14.“When reviewing an award of punitive damages in accordance with Syllabus point 5 of Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc.,186 W.Va. 656, 413 S.E.2d 897(1991), and Syllabus point 5 of Alkire v. First National Bank of Parsons,197 W.Va. 122, 475 S.E.2d 122(1996), this Court will review de novo the jury's award of punitive damages and the circuit court's ruling approving, rejecting, or reducing such award.”Syllabus point 16, Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 224 W.Va. 160, 680 S.E.2d 791(2009).
15.“In actions of tort, where gross fraud, malice, oppression, or wanton, willful, or reckless conduct or criminal indifference to civil obligations affecting the rights of others appear, or where legislative enactment authorizes it, the jury may assess exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages; these terms being synonymous.”Syllabus point 4, Mayer v. Frobe, 40 W.Va. 246, 22 S.E. 58(1895).
16.“Punitive damages are an available form of remedial relief that a court may award under the provisions of W. Va.Code, 5–11–13(c)[1998].”Syllabus point 5, Haynes v. Rhone–Poulenc, Inc., 206 W.Va. 18, 521 S.E.2d 331(1999).
17.Syllabus point 7, Perrine v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 225 W.Va. 482, 694 S.E.2d 815(2010).
18.Syllabus point 15, TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 187 W.Va. 457, 419 S.E.2d 870(1992), aff'd,509 U.S. 443, 113 S.Ct. 2711, 125 L.Ed.2d 366(1993).
Marc E. Williams, Melissa Foster Bird, Jeremy C. Hodges, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Huntington, WV, for Petitioner.
Mark A. Atkinson, Paul L. Frampton, Jr., Atkinson & Polak,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Anderson v. Consolidation Coal Co.
...and competent to perform the services required even if such individual is blind or disabled." For claims under either statute, the employee bears the ultimate burden of proving the employer's illegal motive. See
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith, 729 S.E.2d 151, 169 (W.Va. 2012)(retaliation); Hanlon v. Chambers, 464 S.E.2d 741, 748 (W.Va. 1995) (discrimination). Where, as here, there is no direct evidence of retaliation or discrimination, the general scheme of proof for both... -
Adams v. Barker, Civil Action No. 2:10-0423
...punitive damages bear a reasonable relationship to the harm that is likely to occur and/or has occurred as a result of the defendant's conduct; (2) whether punitive damages bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages; (3) the cost of litigation to the defendant; (4) any criminal sanctions imposed on the defendant for his conduct; (5) any other civil actions against the same defendant based upon the same conduct; and (6) additional relevant evidence. See also
Smith, 229 W. Va. 316,prescribed that one is entitled to punitive damages only where it has been shown that " ‘gross fraud, malice, oppression, or wanton, willful, or reckless conduct or criminal indifference to civil obligations affecting the rights of others appear . . . ." CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith, --- W. Va. ---, ---, 729 S.E.2d 151, 172, (2012)(quoting syl. pt. 4, Mayer v. Frobe, 40 W. Va. 246, 22 S.E. 58 (1895)).B. Analysis Inasmuch as default has been entered as to liability, Mr. Adams need not prove the... -
Daye v. Plumley
...verdict should not be disturbed based on the formulation of the language of the jury instructions so long as the instructions given as a whole are accurate and fair to both parties.
CSX Transp, Inc. v. Smith, 229 W. Va. 316, 330-31, 729 S.E.2d 151, 165-66 (2012)citing Syl. pt. 6, Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995). Furthermore, "a jury instruction cannot be dissected on appeal; instead, the entire instruction is looked at whendissected on appeal; instead, the entire instruction is looked at when determining its accuracy. A trial court, therefore, has broad discretion in formulating its charge to the jury, so long as the charge accurately reflects the law." CSX, 229 W. Va. 316, citing Syl. pt. 4, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). Thus," '[i]t will be presumed that a trial court acted correctly in giving ... instructions to the jury, unless it appears from the record in the case... -
A2C2 P'ship LLC v. Constellation Software, Inc.
...the defendant, punitive damages are not available in an action for breach of contract.") If, however, Plaintiff succeeded on one or more of its intentional tort claims, punitive damages are potentially available. See
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Smith, 729 S.E.2d 151, 171-72 (W. Va. 2012)(stating that in actions of tort, where gross fraud, malice, oppression, or wanton, willful, or reckless conduct or criminal indifference to civil obligations affecting the rights of others appear, or where...