West Virginia Human Rights Commission v. The Esquire Group, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed summary judgment dismissing a housing-discrimination action as barred by res judicata. The court held that the disabled child and the West Virginia Human Rights Commission were not in privity with the parents in the prior restrictive-covenant action, and that the claims and available relief were not sufficiently identical. The case was remanded for trial, while the court declined to address the reasonable-accommodation issue because it had not been litigated to final judgment.

Holdings

1. Res judicata did not apply because Rebecca Black and the Human Rights Commission were neither parties to nor in privity with parties to the prior action. Privity does not automatically arise from a parent-child relationship, and the Human Rights Commission acted pursuant to an independent statutory public-interest authority rather than merely as a proxy for the individual complainants.
2. The third element of res judicata was not satisfied because the Human Rights Commission's statutory housing-discrimination claim was distinct from the private restrictive-covenant action and sought remedies, including civil penalties vindicating the public interest, that were unavailable in the prior proceeding.
3. Summary judgment on reasonable accommodation was not proper because the issue was fact-intensive and the record did not adequately develop material facts concerning the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed accommodation. The court declined to resolve the accommodation issues on the existing record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the housing-discrimination claim was barred by res judicata because of the prior restrictive-covenant action.
2. Whether Rebecca Black and the Human Rights Commission were parties to, or in privity with parties to, the prior restrictive-covenant action.
3. Whether the housing-discrimination claim was the same cause of action as the prior restrictive-covenant claim or could have been resolved in that proceeding.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the alternative ground that Esquire had offered a reasonable accommodation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded