Frye v. FUTURE INNS OF AMERICA-HUNTINGTON
| Decision Date | 30 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 30091.,30091. |
| Citation | 211 W.Va. 350,566 S.E.2d 237 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Angela FRYE, Complainant Below/Appellee Below, Appellee v. FUTURE INNS OF AMERICA-HUNTINGTON, INC., and Richard Huff, in His Individual Capacity, Respondents Below/Appellants Below, Appellees The West Virginia Human Rights Commission, Appellant. |
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Paul R. Sheridan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for West Virginia Human Rights Commission.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the decision of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by holding that the respondents, Future Inns of America-Huntington, Inc. and Richard Huff, are jointly and severally liable for the incidental damages suffered by the complainant, Angela Frye. The Commission argues that incidental damages should be assessed against each respondent. We disagree and affirm.
Future Inns of America-Huntington, Inc. (Future Inns) owns the Econo Lodge in Huntington, West Virginia. Richard Huff owns Hospitality Services Unlimited, Inc. (Hospitality Services) which provides contractual management services for Future Inns.1 In April 1992, Richard Huff hired the complainant, Angela Frye, to work at the Econo Lodge as an assistant manager or manager trainee. She was promoted to the position of general manager when the manager resigned in May 1993. Although Ms. Frye was paid by Future Inns, Richard Huff supervised her.
During the time that Ms. Frye worked for Future Inns, she lived on hotel property. Mr. Huff did not reside in Huntington; however, he visited the Econo Lodge about once each month. During these visits, he usually stayed in a hotel room on the premises. Ms. Frye often joined him for dinner to discuss management issues. Following one such dinner in August or September 1993, Mr. Huff made sexual advances toward Ms. Frye. She testified in a hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ) that following dinner she returned to the Econo Lodge with Mr. Huff. He attempted to kiss her. She rebuffed his efforts. He nonetheless followed her to her room insisting that they needed to discuss business. After stating that the ice machine made too much noise to talk in the hallway, he entered her room. He once again tried to kiss her at which time she asked him to leave. Rather than leaving, he pushed her down on the bed, got on top of her, and tried to lift her skirt. Ms. Frye resisted Mr. Huff's advances and once again asked him to leave her room. At that time, he left.
About a month later, Mr. Huff was once again occupying a room at the Econo Lodge while visiting the hotel property. He and Ms. Frye had dinner together. Upon returning to the hotel, Mr. Huff stated that some maintenance problems existed in his room. He indicated that Ms. Frye should follow him to his room so he could show her the problems. Once inside the room, Mr. Huff tried to kiss Ms. Frye and asked her to spend the night. She refused.
Ms. Frye also testified that from September 1993 through May 1995, Mr. Huff repeatedly asked her to spend the night with him. She repeatedly refused. She says that she did not discontinue her employment with the hotel because she was a student at Marshall University and needed the job. Mr. Huff did not document a single act of misconduct or a single performance problem during Ms. Frye's tenure at the hotel. In fact, Mr. Huff gave Ms. Frye two $1,000 bonuses and a bonus vacation for improving occupancy levels. However, after Ms. Frye filed her action with the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Huff generated a list of twenty-two performance problems. Ms. Frye also believes the bonus vacation was delayed because she told Mr. Huff she preferred to choose her companion as opposed to going away for a week with him.
Ms. Frye severed her employment relationship with Future Inns on May 19, 1995. She suffered a brief period of lost wages but mitigated these damages by accepting a job in Columbus, Ohio. She subsequently moved to Cincinnati, Ohio where she is currently employed in the hotel industry.
On July 26, 1995, Ms. Frye filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging sexual harassment and discrimination. She named both Mr. Huff and Future Inns as respondents. She contended that Ms. Frye claimed that "[t]he Respondent created a sexually hostile working atmosphere." A hearing was held before an ALJ on January 13 and 14, 1998. The ALJ's final decision was entered on January 28, 1999. The ALJ found that "the evidence credibly establishes that the complainant was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment by respondent, Richard Huff, during the period between September, 1993 and the spring of 1995." The ALJ also determined that "[t]he complainant has established that respondent, Future Inns of America, Inc., is liable for the sexual harassment of its employee, Angela Frye, by its manager Richard Huff."
The ALJ concluded:
Richard Huff and Future Inns appealed the ALJ's decision to the Commission alleging that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not supported by the evidence. The respondents argued that Richard Huff was not the agent of Future Inns and Future Inns had not acted improperly; consequently, Future Inns could not be liable. The respondents argued that Ms. Frye filed her action after the statute of limitations had run. They also maintained that Ms. Frye submitted no evidence, such as income tax returns or payroll check stubs, upon which an award for lost wages could be based and her allegations were insufficient to sustain the verdict. After reviewing the record, the Human Rights Commission adopted the "Administrative Law Judge's Final Decision as its own, without modification or amendment."
Pursuant to W.Va.Code § 5-11-11 (1989),2 Richard Huff and Future Inns appealed the Commission's decision to circuit court. The respondents opined that "[t]he decision is clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." They believed the Commission erred because Richard Huff was the only person accused of wrongdoing and he was not an agent, servant, or employee of Future Inns; the claim was filed after the statute of limitations had run; Ms. Frye failed to report any misconduct; and the best evidence rule was violated because Ms. Frye failed to submit any documents such as tax returns or payroll check stubs to support her claim for lost wages. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the incidental damage award against each respondent did not exceed $5,000.00.
The circuit court's final order was entered on June 13, 2001. The court found that the respondents' timeliness and best evidence issues were "completely groundless." This was so because Ms. Frye alleged that at least one act of sexual harassment took place in the year immediately preceding the filing of her complaint, and she was attempting to prove lost wages rather than the content of a document. The court finally held that Mr. Huff and Future Inns were "jointly and severally liable for any damages suffered by the appellee." After making a minor modification for lost wages, the court reduced the incidental damages award by $3,277.45. The respondents were jointly and severally liable for the remaining $3,277.45 incidental damages award. It is from this order that the Commission appeals.
The issue presented in this case involves a question of law. We must determine whether incidental damages awarded by the Human Rights Commission may be assessed per case or per respondent. This Court previously said, "Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).
On appeal, the Commission maintains that awarding non-economic damages on a per respondent rather than a per case basis in a human rights case does not violate the respondents' constitutional right to a jury trial3...
To continue reading
Request your trial