Love v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 209 W. Va. 515

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed judgments in favor of Georgia-Pacific in Angela Love's retaliatory constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The court held that the excluded wage-payment documents and proffered testimony were not relevant to the retaliation claim and that the evidence was insufficient to submit the emotional distress claim to the jury. Chief Justice McGraw filed a dissenting opinion.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff claiming retaliatory constructive discharge must prove the retaliatory discharge and must establish that employer-created intolerable working conditions, related to the protected conduct, were so severe that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign; specific intent to force the resignation is not required.
2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the employee handbook, wage poster, and May 9, 1997 wage-policy memorandum because the evidence was relevant to the underlying wage suit but not necessary to decide whether Georgia-Pacific retaliated against Love or created intolerable working conditions.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Buice's testimony about Bales's alleged treatment of her because the testimony concerned Buice's circumstances and was not relevant to whether the actions against Love were tied to her wage suit.
4. The circuit court did not improperly inject race into the trial because it limited impeachment to Love's prior inconsistent statement identifying her husband's termination, the wage suit, and race as possible reasons for the employment actions.
5. The circuit court properly granted judgment as a matter of law because Love's evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find conduct so extreme and outrageous, or emotional distress so severe, as required for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the employee handbook, wage poster, and wage-policy memorandum as irrelevant to Love's retaliatory constructive-discharge claim.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding testimony concerning an alleged retaliatory attitude toward another employee by Wayne Bales.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly permitted Georgia-Pacific to inject Love's race into the trial through limited impeachment and closing argument.
4. Whether the circuit court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on Love's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
5. What elements a plaintiff must prove to establish retaliatory constructive discharge under West Virginia law.

Disposition

affirmed