Darlington v. Mangum, 22297

• Decision Date: 02 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 22297,22297
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles T. DARLINGTON, Howard Vest, Donzetta R. Roush, F.C. Stump, L.R. Bailey, Gordon Gregory, Sgt. R. Steven Tanner, Lt. Charles B. Lilly, Sgt. W.R. Garaffa, Cpl. J.E. Williams, Capt. E.W. Bennett, Sr., Sgt. Jimmy W. Stone, Cpl. Mitchell P. Barley, Cpl. Marion Mudd, Sgt. Jerry Mitchell, Lt. Michael K. Murkham, Sgt. Arthur Bolen, Dep. M.R. Bumgarner, G.A. Reed, E.S. Rogers, Rhonda Winders, David Gentry, Carol J. Calhoun, Cpl. T. Moran, Robert J. Elam, K.R. Hopkins, R.L. Booker, Ricky E. Snead, Robert E. Thompson, James P. Vance, Larry E. Richmond, James F. Hawley, Michael W. Hopkins and C.R. Bailey, Plaintiffs, v. R. Michael MANGUM, Sheriff of Raleigh County; and Paul H. Flanagan, Vernon P. Barley and Jack P. McDonald, as Duly Elected Members of the County Commission of Raleigh County, and the County Commission of Raleigh County, a Statutory Corporation; and John Parkulo, Alvin Chambers and Richard Terry as Duly Elected Members of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service Commission and the Deputy Sheriff's, Defendants.

Page 809

450 S.E.2d 809

192 W.Va. 112

Charles T. DARLINGTON, Howard Vest, Donzetta R. Roush, F.C.

Stump, L.R. Bailey, Gordon Gregory, Sgt. R. Steven Tanner,

Lt. Charles B. Lilly, Sgt. W.R. Garaffa, Cpl. J.E. Williams,

Capt. E.W. Bennett, Sr., Sgt. Jimmy W. Stone, Cpl. Mitchell

P. Barley, Cpl. Marion Mudd, Sgt. Jerry Mitchell, Lt.

Michael K. Murkham, Sgt. Arthur Bolen, Dep. M.R. Bumgarner,

G.A. Reed, E.S. Rogers, Rhonda Winders, David Gentry, Carol

J. Calhoun, Cpl. T. Moran, Robert J. Elam, K.R. Hopkins,

R.L. Booker, Ricky E. Snead, Robert E. Thompson, James P.

Vance, Larry E. Richmond, James F. Hawley, Michael W.

Hopkins and C.R. Bailey, Plaintiffs, v. R. Michael MANGUM, Sheriff of Raleigh County; and Paul H.

Flanagan, Vernon P. Barley and Jack P. McDonald, as Duly

Elected Members of the County Commission of Raleigh County,

and the County Commission of Raleigh County, a Statutory

Corporation; and

John Parkulo, Alvin Chambers and Richard Terry as Duly

Elected Members of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil

Service Commission and the Deputy

Sheriff's, Defendants.

No. 22297.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 21, 1994.

Decided Nov. 2, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

1. " 'It is a fundamental rule of construction that, in accordance with the maxim noscitur a sociis, the meaning of a word or phrase may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases with which it is associated. Language, although apparently general, may be limited in its operation or effect where it may be gathered from the intent and purpose of the statute that it was designed to apply only to certain persons or things, or was to operate only under certain conditions.' Syllabus point 4, Wolfe v. Forbes, 159 W.Va. 34, 217 S.E.2d 899 (1975)." Syllabus point 1, Banner Printing Co. v. Bykota Corp., 182 W.Va. 488, 388 S.E.2d 844 (1989).

2. Under W.Va.Code, 7-5-20 (1972), a county commission is authorized to require employees who elect to participate in the county's group health insurance to pay part of the premium cost.

3. " 'A state or one of its political subdivisions is not bound by the legally unauthorized acts of its officers and all persons must take note of the legal limitations upon their power and authority. Cunningham v. County Court of Wood County, 148 W.Va. 303, 310, 134 S.E.2d 725, 729 (1964).' Syllabus Point 2, West Virginia Public Employees Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 174 W.Va. 605, 328 S.E.2d 356 (1985)." Syllabus point 3, Freeman v. Poling, 175 W.Va. 814, 338 S.E.2d 415 (1985).

Robin Jean Davis, John F. Dascoli, Segal & Davis, Charleston, for plaintiffs.

Carl W. Roop, Canterbury, Poling & Roop, and K. Bruce Lazenby, and James R. Sheatsley, Gorman & Sheatsley, Beckley, for defendants.

MILLER, Justice: ¹

This case is before us upon a certified question from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. The question presented is whether the Raleigh County Commission (Commission) had the authority to require deputy sheriffs who wanted health insurance to pay a portion of the monthly premium. The issue arose in September, 1991. After reviewing its employee health care costs, which amounted to $350,000.00 a year, the Commission decided to charge county employees a premium of $25.00 a month for single persons and $50.00 a month for a family.

A number of deputy sheriffs (Plaintiffs) subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that the Commission's action violated that portion of W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a) (1976), which provides that a deputy sheriff may not "... be removed, discharged, suspended or reduced in rank or pay except for just cause...." After receiving briefs and arguments of counsel, the circuit court determined that W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a) did not control the issue and certified the question to this Court. We agree with the circuit court's conclusion.

The language of W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a), relates to disciplinary proceedings initiated against deputy sheriffs. This is quite evident when the entire text of W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a) is read. ² Historically, in matters of statutory construction, we have held that the complete text of a statute should be considered in order to determine its meaning. As we explained in syllabus point 1 of Banner Printing Company v. Bykota Corporation, 182 W.Va. 488, 388 S.E.2d 844 (1989):

"It is a fundamental rule of construction that, in accordance with the maxim noscitur a sociis, the meaning of a word or phrase may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases with which it is associated. Language, although apparently general, may be limited in its operation or effect where it may be gathered from the intent and purpose of the statute that it was designed to apply only to certain persons or things, or was to operate only under certain conditions." Syllabus point 4, Wolfe v. Forbes, 159 W.Va. 34, 217 S.E.2d 899 (1975).

In this case, the term "reduction in wages" in W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a) is used as part of a group of disciplinary actions that cannot be taken without affording the deputy sheriff the procedural rights contained in this statute. The action taken by the Commission was not predicated on any disciplinary event, but instead was related to the payment of insurance premiums for health coverage. ³

Of particular relevance is the Commission's argument that under W.Va.Code, 7-5-20 (1972), the Commission has no absolute duty to provide medical coverage, but is merely authorized by the legislature to do so. W.Va.Code, 7-5-20, states that the Commission "... is hereby authorized and empowered to pay the entire premium cost or any portion thereof of such group policy or policies." ⁴ This section also provides that, when the Commission does not pay the entire cost of the premium, it is authorized to deduct the employee's contribution from his or her salary or wage payment. ⁵ Thus, it seems clear that under W.Va.Code, 7-5-20, a county commission is authorized to require employees who elect to participate in the county's group health insurance to pay part of the premium cost. ⁶

Plaintiffs also contend that the Commission's Personnel Handbook provides that it will pay 100% of the employee's health insurance cost after the first twelve months of employment. Both Sheriff Mangum and his predecessor, Sheriff England, admitted that they made statements to this effect to deputy sheriffs. Such statements are contrary to the language of W.Va.Code, 7-5-20, which permits the Commission to pay either all or part of its group health insurance premiums. In Freeman v. Poling, 175 W.Va. 814, 338 S.E.2d 415 (1985), we discussed at some length the question of whether promises, which were contrary to law, made by public officials when functioning in their governmental capacity were binding. We concluded that they were not, as otherwise such promises could override statutory law. We stated in syllabus point 3 of Freeman:

"A state or one of its political subdivisions is not bound by the legally unauthorized acts of its officers and all persons must take note of the legal limitations upon their power and authority. Cunningham v. County Court of Wood County, 148 W.Va. 303, 310, 134 S.E.2d 725, 729 (1964)." Syllabus Point 2, West Virginia Public Employees Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 174 W.Va. 605, 328 S.E.2d 356 (1985).

More recently, in Williams v. Brown, 190 W.Va. 202, 437 S.E.2d 775 (1993), we dealt with the question of whether statements in a public agency's employment manual could override a statutory provision. We decided that such statements were not binding and quoted from Fiorentino...