Tricia Roth v. Defelicecare Inc.
Decision Date | 08 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 34805.,34805. |
Citation | 700 S.E.2d 183,226 W.Va. 214 |
Parties | Tricia ROTH and Brian Roth, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. DeFELICECARE, INC., and Leslie DeFelice, Defendants Below, Appellees. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Syllabus by the Court
1. “Appellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo.” Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995).
2. “The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977).
3. “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.” Syl. Pt. 7, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995).
4. “The rule that an employer has an absolute right to discharge an at will employee must be tempered by the principle that where the employer's motivation for the discharge is to contravene some substantial public policy principle, then the employer may be liable to the employee for damages occasioned by this discharge.” Syllabus, Harless v. First Nat'l Bank in Fairmont, 162 W.Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978).
5. “A determination of the existence of public policy in West Virginia is a question of law, rather than a question of fact for a jury.” Syl. Pt. 1, Cordle v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 174 W.Va. 321, 325 S.E.2d 111 (1984).
6. “Even though a discharged at-will employee has no statutory claim for retaliatory discharge under W. Va.Code, 5-11-9(7)(C) [1992] of the West Virginia Human Rights Act because his or her former employer was not employing twelve or more persons within the state at the time the acts giving rise to the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice were committed, as required by W. Va.Code, 5-11-3(d) [1994], the discharged employee may nevertheless maintain a common law claim for retaliatory discharge against the employer based on alleged sex discrimination or sexual harassment because sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment contravene the public policy of this State articulated in the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code, 5-11-1, et seq.” Syl. Pt. 8, Williamson v. Greene, 200 W.Va. 421, 490 S.E.2d 23 (1997).
7. “It is against substantial public policy of West Virginia to discharge an at-will employee because such employee has given or may be called to give truthful testimony in a legal action.” Syl. Pt. 4, Page v. Columbia Natural Res., 198 W.Va. 378, 480 S.E.2d 817 (1996).
8. “In order to make a prima facie case of [disparate treatment] employment discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code § 5-11-1 et seq...., the plaintiff must offer proof of the following:
(1) That the plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
(2) That the employer made an adverse decision concerning the plaintiff.
(3) But for the plaintiff's protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made.”
Syl. Pt. 3, Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W.Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986).
9. “ Syl. Pt. 5, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995).
10. Syl. Pt. 7, Conrad v. ARA Szabo, 198 W.Va. 362, 480 S.E.2d 801 (1996).
11. Syl. Pt. 2, Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 191 W.Va. 278, 445 S.E.2d 219 (1994), modified on other grounds as stated in Tudor v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W.Va. 111, 506 S.E.2d 554 (1997).
Ronald W. Zavolta, Esq., Wheeling, WV, for Appellants.
Bradley K. Shafer, Esq., Ancil G. Ramey, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, Wheeling, WV, for Appellees.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of the Order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, entered on October 16, 2008, dismissing the Complaint filed by the Appellants and Plaintiffs below, Tricia Roth and Brian Roth, against the Appellees and Defendants below, DeFeliceCare, Inc., and Leslie DeFelice, pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The circuit court determined that the Appellants failed to allege any cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The Appellants sole complaint on appeal is that the circuit court erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Appellees. Based upon a review of the record, the parties' respective briefs and arguments, as well as all other matters submitted before the Court, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand the case for further proceedings.
This case arises from a Complaint filed by the Appellants on June 6, 2008, against the Appellees in the Circuit Court of Ohio County. In their Complaint, the Appellants alleged that in June of 2006, “Plaintiff [Tricia] Roth was directed by Defendant DeFelice to report to work on the weekend prior to Plaintiff Roth commencing her one week vacation.” Other than requesting Mrs. Roth to come into work over the weekend, there was no specific time that she was told to report. The Appellants averred that Mrs. Roth went to DeFeliceCare as directed by Mr. DeFelice. When she entered DeFeliceCare, she “observed Defendant DeFelice and/or Michelle Kelly partially clothed and in a compromised position.” Mrs. Roth “was then directed to a conference room by Defendant DeFelice while Defendant DeFelice and/or Michelle Kelly fully clothed themselves.” According to the allegations, the “Defendant DeFelice proceeded to order Plaintiff Roth to forget about what she observed and threatened Plaintiff Roth with the loss of her respiratory therapy license and loss of her employment with Defendant DeFelice Care.” Mrs. Roth told Mr. DeFelice that she would remain silent about her observations.
Mrs. Roth proceeded to go on her vacation and, upon her return, met with the Mr. DeFelice. During this meeting, Mrs. Roth alleges that Mr. DeFelice fired her from her employment with DeFeliceCare. Despite Mrs. Roth informing Mr. DeFelice that she had not told anyone about what she had observed, Mr. DeFelice told her that “he was terminating her employment with DeFeliceCare because he did not like how she dressed and he did not like the style[/]color of her hair.” Mrs. Roth was an at-will employee at the time of her termination.
The Appellants filed a Complaint alleging counts of hostile workplace, wrongful termination, employment discrimination, retaliatory discharge, common law reprisal and intentional and/or reckless infliction of emotional distress stemming from her termination from employment with the Appellees as a respiratory therapist. The Appellees responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After a hearing on the motion, the circuit court ruled in favor of the Appellees, dismissing all eight counts in the Appellants' Complaint.
The standard of review applicable to dismissal orders entered pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is that the “[a]ppellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C.C. v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...respondent Harrison County Board of Education was not on fair notice of the petitioners’ claims. See Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc. , 226 W. Va. 214, 220 n.4, 700 S.E.2d 183, 189 n.4 (2010) (under West Virginia law, when measuring the sufficiency of a complaint, "all that is required by a plain......
-
Burke v. Wetzel Cnty. Comm'n
...under the Human Rights Act, an employee can pursue a claim when they are "perceived as" having a disability); Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc ., 226 W. Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (2010) (holding that plaintiff had both a viable Human Rights Act hostile workplace claim, and a viable common law retali......
-
Mountaineer Fire & Rescue Equip., LLC v. City Nat'l Bank of W. Va.
...measuring the sufficiency of a complaint, "all that is required by a plaintiff is ‘fair notice.’ " Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc. , 226 W. Va. 214, 220 n.4, 700 S.E.2d 183, 189 n.4 (2010) (quoting Scott Runyan Pontiac–Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. at 776, 461 S.E.2d at 522 ). We continue to firmly ab......
-
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat For Humanity Inc.
...appropriate [346 S.W.3d 437] forum for revising the Washington rules is the rule-making process.”); see also Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc., 226 W.Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183, 197 (2010) (Benjamin, J., dissenting) (stating that it is “preferable that we consider [the adoption of a heightened pleadi......
-
FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS IN STATE COURT.
...Inc., 346 S.W.3d422, 430 (Tenn. 2011); McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 233 P.3d 861, 86364 (Wash. 2010); Roth v. DeFeliceCare, Inc., 700 S.E.2d 183, 189 n.4 (W. Va. (88.) Walsh, 851 N.W.2d at 603-04. (89.) See Hawkeye Foodservice, 812 N.W.2d at 608. (90.) E.g., Miller, supra note 13, at 1......