Currey v. State of W. Va. Human Rights Commission
| Decision Date | 16 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 14460,14460 |
| Citation | 273 S.E.2d 77,166 W.Va. 163 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 28, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,651 Bonnie B. CURREY v. STATE OF W. VA. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, and E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. |
Syllabus by the Court
After an investigating commissioner's finding of probable cause to credit a timely complaint to the West Virginia Human Rights Commission as true, and failure of conference and conciliation efforts, the commission has a statutory, nondiscretionary duty to proceed to hearing on the charge. Code, 5-11-10.
Katz, Kantor, Katz, Perkins & Cameron and Norris Kantor, Bluefield, for appellant.
Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., Gail Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for Human Rights Com'n.
Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer, George G. Guthrie and Carl L. Fletcher, Jr., Charleston, for E. I. du Pont.
Kathleen Strasbaugh, Huntington, Franklin D. Cleckley, Morgantown, Emily Spieler, East Bank, Penelope Crandall, Charleston, for amicus curiae, NAACP, Mountain State Bar and NOW.
The West Virginia Human Rights Commission denied Bonnie Currey a public hearing on a sex discrimination charge against E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., after an investigating commissioner determined there was probable cause to believe that her allegations were true. Currey applied to the Kanawha County Circuit Court for a writ of error authorized by our Administrative Procedures Act, W.Va. Code, 29A-1-1 et seq., for contested cases, praying that the matter be remanded to the commission for hearing. The circuit court ruled that hers was not a contested case, dismissed her application, and she appealed to us.
Currey's complaint charged DuPont with sex discrimination by failing to promote her and by paying women less than men for the same work, contrary to Code, 5-11-9, infra. The case was docketed by the HRC and after reviewing evidence obtained during the commission's investigation, an investigating commissioner credited her complaint as true and commenced conferences and conciliation efforts according to Code, 5-11-10, infra. The efforts failed, resulting in a recommendation by HRC staff that the case be considered for public hearing. The commission then reviewed the complaint anew, and refused to have a hearing.
After a finding of probable cause by staff, does the commission have discretion to deny a public hearing? What is a "contested case" per Code, 29A-1-1(e)? These were the questions extensively briefed by appellant, the commission, DuPont and amici curiae (West Virginia Conference-National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Mountain State Bar Association, Inc., and West Virginia Chapter of the National Organization for Women), with emphasis on state and federal due process requirements for property and liberty interests. However, we believe this is a rather simple matter of statutory construction.
The Human Rights Act must be read in pari materia.
Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent. Accordingly, a court should not limit its consideration to any single part, provision, section, sentence, phrase or word, but rather review the act or statute in its entirety to ascertain legislative intent properly. Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., W.Va., 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975), Syllabus Point 5.
The Act declares it "the public policy of the State of West Virginia to provide all of its citizens equal opportunity for employment" and "(e)qual opportunity in the areas of employment ... is hereby declared to be a human right or civil right of all persons without regard to ... sex", Code, 5-11-2; State Human Rights Commission v. Pauley, W.Va., 212 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1975). The commission is responsible for "eliminat(ing) all discrimination in employment ... by virtue of ... sex". Code, 5-11-4.
The Legislature defined unlawful discriminatory activities and provided a forum and procedure to remedy them. Section 9(a) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice "(f)or any employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment if the individual is able and competent to perform the services required". Code, 5-11-9(a). An individual aggrieved by such practice has ninety days during which to file a formal, verified complaint with the commission. Code, 5-11-10. Section 10 mandates that the commission conduct a prompt investigation. The use of the word "shall" throughout this section indicates that the commission's duties are nondiscretionary. Woodring v. Whyte, W.Va., 242 S.E.2d 238 (1978); Bounds v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r., 153 W.Va. 670, 172 S.E.2d 379 (1970).
If it shall be determined after such investigation or meeting that probable cause exists for substantiating the allegations of the complaint, the commission shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practices complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion.
In case of failure so to eliminate such practice or in advance thereof, if in the judgment of the commission circumstances so warrant, the commission shall cause to be issued and served a written notice, ... requiring the person, employer, ... to answer the charges of such complaint at a hearing before the commission.... Code, 5-11-10. (Emphasis added.)
Does the phrase "if in the judgment of the commission circumstances so warrant", refer to the commission's duty to issue notice and hold a hearing, or does it modify "or in advance thereof", meaning that the commission may initiate notice and hearing before termination of the conciliation phase, if in its judgment further efforts would be wasteful or unproductive.
Rules promulgated by the commission for proceedings under the act, 1 are helpful.
3.10 Dismissal of Complaint -Where the allegations of a complaint on its face, or as amplified by the statements of the complainant to the Commission, disclose that the complaint is not timely filed or otherwise fails to state a valid claim for relief under the Act, the Commission my (sic) dismiss the complaint without further action. The Commission may also dismiss a complaint if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State, Human Rights Com'n
...hearing upon failure of conciliation efforts is nondiscretionary. As this Court stated in the single Syllabus Point of Currey v. Human Rights Commission, 273 S.E.2d 77 (W.Va.1980), "After an investigating commissioner's finding of probable cause to credit a timely complaint to the West Virg......
-
State v. Petry
... ... actors who conspired to commit the crime but were absent at its commission. Consequently the common law rules of pleading require that an indictment ... ...
-
West Virginia Human Rights Commission v. United Transp. Union, Local No. 655
...and procedures subject to judicial review. Code, 29A-1-1, et seq., Administrative Procedures Act; Currey v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, W.Va., 273 S.E.2d 77 (1980). "As a general rule administrative findings of fact are conclusive upon a reviewing court, and not within the scope ......
-
Charleston Acad. of Beauty Culture, Inc. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n
...of probable cause, which prompts the conduct of a public hearing. W. Va. Code § 5-11 -10; see Currev v. State of West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 166 W. Va. 163, 273 S.E.2d 77 (1980): see also Perry v. Miller, 166 W. Va. 138, 272 S.E.2d 678(1980). Now that there has been a public hear......