CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals says a wrongful discharge claim was rightfully dismissed.
Todd Jarrell claimed he was terminated after reporting misconduct by coworkers, and he said state code establishes a substantial public policy supporting his wrongful discharge claim. However, the court concluded that West Virginia Code § 61-3-49b does not set forth a substantial public policy to support a wrongful discharge claim.
Justice Haley Bunn authored the majority opinion filed November 9.
Jarrell's attorney, Walt Auvil, was not pleased with the majority's opinion.
"We agree with the dissent," Auvil said to The West Virginia Record.
Jarrell, a longtime cable technician for various telecommunications companies, worked for Frontier for about eight years before his termination. He reported that coworkers intentionally damaged Frontier's equipment, causing service disruptions.
He alleged that when he reported the problems to his supervisor, Daniel Jordan, but Frontier took no action against the coworkers initially.
Frontier scheduled Jarrell for reassignment, but Michael Linkous canceled it. Subsequently, some coworkers accused of misconduct were transferred to other service areas. Jarrell made his final reports in the fall of 2017. In the following spring, Frontier suspended Jarrell for five days for tardiness, and his union's grievance was denied.
Later, he faced a random drug test, contested by his union, and used a Frontier bucket truck for personal reasons. This led to his termination, which Jarrell contested through a third grievance.
Jarrell filed a wrongful discharge claim, contending he was terminated for reporting coworkers' misconduct, and the cited reasons were pretextual. The circuit court granted Frontier's motion to dismiss, ruling Jarrell failed to allege a substantial public policy supporting a wrongful discharge exception.
The central issue revolves around whether West Virginia Code § 61-3-49b establishes a substantial public policy to support Jarrell's wrongful discharge claim.
The court, relying on the Harless standard, emphasizes that for a wrongful discharge claim, the employee must prove that the employer's motivation for termination contravenes some substantial public policy, according to the opinion.
Jarrell argued that § 61-3-49b establishes substantial public policy by prohibiting the disruption of communications or public utility services through theft or intentional damage.
He claimed Frontier violated this policy when terminating him after reporting coworkers' intentional damage to equipment. The court, however, rejects this argument, asserting that § 61-3-49b does not constitute substantial public policy for a wrongful discharge claim.
The court concluded that § 61-3-49b, a statute recognizing property crimes, does not establish substantial public policy for a wrongful discharge claim.
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to dismiss Jarrell's complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court asserts that, given the allegations in Jarrell's complaint, the circuit court did not err in ruling that he failed to state a claim for wrongful discharge, and therefore, Frontier's motion to dismiss was appropriately granted.
Justice John Hutchison and Justice Bill Wooton dissented.
"I dissent from the majority opinion’s stunning conclusion that West Virginia Code § 61-3-49b does not embody a public policy sufficient to support a Harless-type wrongful-discharge claim," Hutchison wrote in the dissent.
Hutchison wrote that he would have held that the plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy contained in the code.
"Moreover, I would have revised or overruled Blanda, and found that an employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee because the employee made a good faith report to the employer of an instance of wrongdoing (like the clear violation of a criminal statute designed to protect the public or the employer)," Hutchison wrote.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0040
