Christine Blanda v. Martin & Seibert, L.C.

Blanda v. Martin & Seibert, L.C. · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · November 22, 2019 · No. No. 19-0317

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia answered a certified question from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia concerning whether West Virginia Code § 61-3-24 establishes a substantial public policy supporting a Harless wrongful-discharge claim. The court reformulated the question and held that the statute does not create such a public policy for an employee of a non-public employer who reports suspected criminal conduct to an appropriate authority and alleges retaliation. The opinion distinguishes cases involving employees discharged for refusing to engage in illegal activity.

Holdings

  1. The court may reformulate the certified question when the question as framed does not permit the court to fully address the law involved, and the question was properly narrowed to concern an employee of a non-public employer who reported suspected criminal conduct to the appropriate authority.
  2. Legal issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court are reviewed de novo.
  3. West Virginia Code § 61-3-24 does not constitute a substantial public policy under Harless and its progeny protecting an employee of a non-public employer who reports suspected criminal conduct to the appropriate authority and claims retaliation as a result.
  4. Lilly does not control because it involved an employee discharged for refusing to engage in illegal activity and rested on specific statutory and common-law safety policies, whereas Blanda alleged retaliation for reporting suspected criminal conduct.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether West Virginia Code § 61-3-24 constitutes a substantial public policy under Harless v. First National Bank sufficient to support a wrongful-discharge claim by an employee of a non-public employer who reported suspected criminal conduct to the appropriate authority and alleges retaliatory discharge.
  2. Whether the certified question should be reformulated to address the narrower factual and legal issue presented by the case.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W. Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998)(followed)
  • Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978)(followed)
  • Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Servs. Corp., 188 W. Va. 371, 424 S.E.2d 606 (1992)(followed)
  • Swears v. R.M. Roach & Sons, Inc., 225 W. Va. 699, 696 S.E.2d 1 (2010)(followed)
  • Lilly v. Overnight Transp. Co., 188 W. Va. 538, 425 S.E.2d 214 (1992)(distinguished)
  • Frohnapfel v. ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 235 W. Va. 165, 772 S.E.2d 350 (2015)(followed)
  • Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W. Va. 135, 506 S.E.2d 578 (1998)(followed)
  • Shell v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 183 W. Va. 407, 396 S.E.2d 174 (1990)(followed)
  • Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W. Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993)(followed)
  • Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…