Quantcast

Supreme Court reverse, remand cases involving Shepherd University police firings

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Supreme Court reverse, remand cases involving Shepherd University police firings

State Supreme Court
Webp shepherduniversity

Shepherd University | John O'Brien / The Record

CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings cases involving two Shepherd University campus police officers who contested their terminations.

In the appeal, Jay Longerbeam and Donald Buracker contested their termination as campus police officers, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, violation of the West Virginia Whistle-blower Law and wrongful discharge under the Harless doctrine, according to the April 11 court opinion.

Justice Bill Wooton authored the majority opinion. Justice Haley Bunn recused herself from the case, and Judge Jason Wharton heard the case in her place.

The termination stemmed from incidents in 2018 and 2019 where the petitioners were accused of misconduct and unprofessionalism.

Hans Fogle, Executive Director of University Communications at Shepherd University, said the court's ruling was a technical one.

"In addressing this case brought by former Shepherd University employees, the West Virginia Supreme Court does not conclude or even imply that the University did anything wrong," Fogle said in an interview with The West Virginia Record. "The court has simply made a technical, legal ruling that addresses the procedural status of the litigation. The university’s decisions were proper, and we will fully show that in a trial."

Christian Riddell, an attorney with The Riddell Law Group, said his firm was pleased with the decision.

"We are thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision," Riddell said in an interview with The Record. "After years of frustration, it appears that the path has finally been cleared for a jury trial in this matter. Both Mr. Buracker and Mr. Longerbeam have had mud smeared on their otherwise spotless records for doing nothing more than enforcing the laws of the State of West Virginia and calling out misconduct when they saw it - in other words, for being nothing other than good police. 

"They look forward to being publicly vindicated before a jury of their peers, and are grateful for the support they have received from their family and friends during this trying time."

The first incident involved a warrantless entry into a student's dorm room, while the second incident occurred during a traffic stop involving student-athletes. 

Shepherd University contended that the petitioners' actions, particularly the entry into the dorm room, were improper and constituted misconduct. 

Following investigations and hearings, Shepherd terminated the petitioners, citing reasons related to the incidents.

The petitioners filed lawsuits alleging discrimination, retaliation and wrongful discharge, claiming their termination was pretextual and motivated by discrimination and retaliation. They argued that Shepherd's actions violated various laws and public policy, including protections against age and disability discrimination and whistle-blower retaliation.

The circuit court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Shepherd on all claims, but upon appeal, the ruling was partially reversed. 

While the state Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Longerbeam's disability discrimination claim, it reversed the dismissal of Buracker's retaliation, whistle-blower, and Harless claims, as well as Longerbeam's whistle-blower and Harless claims.

The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly regarding the motives behind the termination and whether Shepherd's justifications were pretextual. 

The burden-shifting framework was applied, requiring Shepherd to provide legitimate reasons for the termination, which the court found debatable. Disputed facts, including conflicting testimonies regarding the incidents and Shepherd's rationale for termination, necessitated further proceedings.

The court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate due to unresolved factual disputes, particularly regarding the alleged discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge claims. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to address the remaining claims.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case numbers: 22-609, 22-610

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News