Wanda Keener and Katherine Asbury v. Clay County Development Corporation

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed summary judgment for the Clay County Development Corporation in claims alleging employment discrimination and breach of an implied employment contract. The court held that familial status is not a protected category for employment discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act and that sibling relationships do not constitute ancestry under the Act. The court also addressed whether the employer’s employment guide created an implied contract and concluded that the petitioners remained at-will employees.

Holdings

1. Familial status is not a protected group for purposes of an employment-discrimination claim under the West Virginia Human Rights Act because the Legislature included familial status for housing and real-property discrimination but omitted it from the employment list.
2. As used in West Virginia Code section 5-11-2, ancestry means discrimination based on a characteristic such as race, ethnicity, or national origin that is passed down by lineal descendants; familial status involving a sibling relationship does not fall within ancestry.
3. Summary judgment was proper because petitioners' asserted discrimination based on their relationship to their sister was not based on a protected employment characteristic under the Act.
4. The Employment Guide did not create an implied employment contract because it contained no definite promise of job security or fixed term, expressly stated that receipt of the manual did not constitute an employment contract, and permitted positive termination for insufficient funding or reorganization.
5. Petitioners remained at-will employees because they failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Employment Guide or other facts created enforceable employment rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether familial status is a protected group, or falls within the term ancestry, for purposes of an employment-discrimination claim under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.
2. Whether the CCDC Employment Guide created an implied employment contract requiring progressive discipline before petitioners could be terminated.
3. Whether petitioners established by clear and convincing evidence that their employment was other than at will.
4. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to CCDC.

Disposition

affirmed