Saunders v. Tri-State Block Corp., No. 26853.

• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 207 W.Va. 616,535 S.E.2d 215
• Parties: David C. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. TRI-STATE BLOCK CORPORATION, a West Virginia Corporation, and Glenn Straub, Individually, Defendants Below, Appellants.
• Decision Date: 12 July 2000
• Docket Number: No. 26853.

535 S.E.2d 215
207 W.Va. 616

David C. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff Below, Appellee,
v.
TRI-STATE BLOCK CORPORATION, a West Virginia Corporation, and Glenn Straub, Individually, Defendants Below, Appellants

No. 26853.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 11, 2000.

Decided July 12, 2000.

535 S.E.2d 216

Vincent S. Gurrera, Esquire, Daniel P. Taylor, Esquire, Dean G. Makricostas, Esquire, Gurrera, Taylor & Makricostas, Weirton, West Virginia, Attorneys for Appellee

Elgine Heceta McArdle, Esquire, Musser & McArdle, Wheeling, West Virginia, Attorney for Appellants.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by Tri-State Block Corporation and Glenn Straub from an order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County granting the appellee, David C. Saunders, summary judgment on a claim asserted by Mr. Saunders under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code 21-5-1, et seq. The circuit court ordered the appellants to pay Mr. Saunders wages in the amount of $11,023.21, liquidated damages in the amount of $4,093.50, attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $10,347.94, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,801.11. On appeal, the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in awarding Mr. Saunders summary judgment since, they claim, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Mr. Saunders was an employee within the meaning of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. They also claim that, even if he was an employee, a material question of fact existed as to the amount of damages to which he was entitled. Lastly, they assert that the circuit court erred in awarding David C. Saunders attorney fees without affording them an opportunity to challenge the fee statement which he had submitted.

I.

FACTS

The individual appellant, Glenn Straub, is the President of Tri-State Block Corporation, the corporate appellant in this case.

The record developed in this case shows that prior to March 1996, Tri-State Block Corporation used a company known as U-MET of Pennsylvania as an independent sales representative to sell its metallurgical block product. At the time, the appellee, David C. Saunders, was employed by U-MET Corporation and handled the Tri-State Block Corporation account.

In March 1996, Tri-State Block Corporation discontinued its relationship with U-MET Corporation. What happened next is not precisely clear. The appellants, Tri-State Block Corporation and Glenn Straub, in their brief, claim that Tri-State Block Corporation began using an operation by the name of LEMET or Lehigh Metallurgical Services as one of its outside sales representatives and that LEMET was an operation of David C. Saunders. David C. Saunders, on the other hand, in his response to the appellant's brief, states that: "In or around the month of February 1996, Appellee [David C. Saunders] was contacted and recruited by the Appellant, Tri-State Block Corporation, to become its employee and to provide services on its behalf."

Various letters in the record, written on the letterhead of "LEMET—Lehigh Metallurgical Services" show that after March 1996, David C. Saunders did correspond with various companies and provide information and quotes to those companies on Tri-State Block Corporation's products.

Less than a year after March 1996, Tri-State Block Corporation wrote directly to David C. Saunders on January 3, 1997, and stated: "We have reviewed our sales operations and have determined that your services are no longer required." In the letter, Tri-State Block Corporation indicated that Mr. Saunders would be paid for all orders received as of January 1997, and referred to him as an "employee at-will."

535 S.E.2d 217

Following termination of the relationship, Mr. Saunders instituted the present civil action. In his complaint, he alleged that he had been an employee of Tri-State Block Corporation, and that Tri-State Block Corporation, in bad faith, and in violation of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code 21-5-1, et seq., had failed to pay him the full wages due him

Tri-State Block Corporation filed an answer to Mr. Saunders' complaint and denied that he had been its employee. Following the filing of the answer, discovery was conducted, and on January 21, 1999, David C. Saunders moved for summary judgment. The appellants resisted the motion for summary judgment and various additional documents were filed by the parties. For instance, the letter terminating Tri-State Block Corporation's relationship with Mr. Saunders was introduced, and in that letter Tri-State Block Corporation specifically stated that Mr. Saunders was an at-will employee. Tri-State Block Corporation submitted an affidavit prepared by Joe Belot, an outside consultant, who was aware of the nature of the relationship between Tri-State Block Corporation and its various sales representatives. In the affidavit, Mr. Belot stated that: "These outside representatives were independent contractors and were not employees of Tri-State Block Corp." In that affidavit, Mr. Belot also stated that as part of his duties for Tri-State Block Corporation he was responsible for the manufacture and sale of Tri-State Block Corporation's product and that while Mr. Saunders performed services for Tri-State Block Corporation, between March 26, 1996 and January 3, 1997 "he had no control over Saunders nor did he supervise the work that Saunders did." Additionally, Tri-State Block Corporation submitted an affidavit prepared by A1 Lander, its office manager. In that affidavit, Mr. Lander stated: "That Saunders acted independently, that Tri-State Block Corp. had no control over his work nor did I supervise Saunders."

Ultimately, the circuit court after considering the record developed, on March 22, 1999, ruled on the summary judgment motion and found that David C. Saunders was an employee of Tri-State Block Corporation within the meaning of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code 21-5-1, et seq., and that he was entitled to specific sums as damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. The court's order specifically stated:

3. The Plaintiff [David C. Saunders] was an employee of Defendant, Tri-State Block Corporation within the meaning of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code Section 21-5-1 et seq.

4. The Plaintiff was terminated

...