Eastham v. City of Huntington, 222 W. Va. 661

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the City of Huntington's employee residency requirement was valid. Although the ordinance provided for immediate discharge for noncompliance, the court construed it to preserve the pre-disciplinary hearing protections afforded to civil service employees by the state constitution and statutes. The court reversed the circuit court's determination that the requirement was void and unenforceable and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. West Virginia municipalities may enact employee-residency requirements under W. Va. Code § 8-5-11, subject to the state constitution and applicable civil-service protections.
2. Absent exigent circumstances, a civil-service officer may not be discharged, suspended, or reduced in rank or pay without a pre-disciplinary hearing.
3. Huntington's residency ordinance must be construed as permitting discharge for a residency violation only after the employee receives the pre-disciplinary hearing required by constitutional and statutory law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Huntington's municipal residency requirement was authorized and generally valid under West Virginia law.
2. Whether the ordinance's provision for immediate discharge violated constitutional and statutory due-process protections by authorizing discharge of civil-service employees without a pre-disciplinary hearing.
3. Whether the ordinance could reasonably be construed to preserve the pre-disciplinary hearing required by constitutional and civil-service law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded