CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a commercial driver's license instructor who taught for Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College sufficiently stated her claims in her discrimination case against the school.
Justice Bill Wooton authored the majority opinion. Justices John Hutchison and Tim Armstead partially concurred and filed a separate opinion. Justice Alan Moats did not participate in the opinion.
Diane Sigismondi Judy was a CDL instructor at EWVCTC from April 2018 to May 2019. In August 2020, she filed a complaint against the school, alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and West Virginia code.
Immediately upon filing the complaint, the school moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Judy lacked the ability to bring a claim under WVHRA because she was not an "employee" under the act. The school also argued that it was entitled to qualified immunity as a state agency and that Judy failed to allege that but for her protected status she would not have lost her job.
Hardy Circuit Court granted the school's motion to dismiss, finding that it was entitled to qualified immunity and that Judy had failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standard invoked when immunities are implicated in civil actions. Judy then appealed that order to the Supreme Court.
Wooton wrote in the majority opinion that Judy has alleged facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
"Specifically, she alleged that she is a member of a protected class; in fact, she alleged she is a member of two protected classes as she is both female and over the age of forty," Wooton wrote. "She then alleged that Eastern declined to permit her to reapply for her position or renew her contract, tantamount to a discharge, and replaced her with a younger male — someone who was not a member of her protected class."
Wooton wrote that the court could easily determine that Judy pled that she worked for the school for more than a year, that she was willing to travel to retain her position, and that the overall passage rate for her class was 99%.
"For the foregoing reasons, we have no trouble in determining that Petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to establish an inference of discrimination sufficient to sustain an employment discrimination claim in the face of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss," Wooton wrote. "The circuit court’s conclusion to the contrary was clearly erroneous; accordingly, we are compelled to reverse that decision and remand this matter for further proceedings."
Hutchison wrote that while he agreed with the majority, he wanted to write separately regarding Judy's attorneys.
"I write separately because I believe that the plaintiff’s attorneys should have made a much simpler argument to the circuit court: any qualified immunity defense was waived by the State when it adopted the Human Rights Act," Hutchison wrote. "The plaintiff’s attorneys missed the mark entirely by buying in to, and trying to rebut, the state college’s assertion of qualified immunity. Through passage of the Human Rights Act, the Legislature has waived any argument that the State and its subdivisions have any immunity, qualified or otherwise, for violations of the Act."
Hutchison wrote that qualified immunity as no place in an action where a government employer is sued for discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of Hardy Circuit Court.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 21-0004
