Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice
230 W. Va. 105
W. Va.2012Background
- Rice, a long-time controller, was terminated March 12, 2009 after Stella-Jones acquired Burke-Parsons-Bowlby; his job was eliminated and a younger replacement was hired; Rice alleged age discrimination under WVHRA; trial produced a verdict for Rice with back/front pay but no punitive damages; circuit court awarded fees and costs and denied a new trial.
- Rice sought compensatory damages for back and front pay; the verdict totaled $2,133,991 with no damages for non-economic harms and no punitive damages.
- Defendants argued on several grounds for a new trial, including improper admission of prior-act evidence (Robert Crane), improper handling of Rice’s damages post-offer of reinstatement, and the claim that unmitigated damages equated to punitive damages.
- Before trial, Vachon offered Rice reinstatement in December 2009 for the same pay/benefits, which Rice declined; the offer prompted disputes over whether back/front pay should extend beyond February 1, 2010.
- The court ruled that the issues surrounding reinstatement versus front pay were jury questions in a wrongful-discharge action, citing Peters and Voorhees, and the jury’s findings were ultimately upheld on appeal.
- Concerning Crane, the court admitted 404(b) evidence showing a similar-age, long-tenured employee was discriminated against; the admission and limiting instruction were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Crane evidence | Rice proves discriminatory motive through Crane’s age-based termination | Crane’s case is dissimilar and should be barred | Admissible under 404(b); similar circumstances support discrimination motive |
| Remedies: reinstatement vs. front/back pay | Front pay is appropriate despite reinstatement offer | Court should decide reinstatement vs front pay, not the jury | Jury may decide reinstatement vs front pay; trial court did not err in submitting to the jury |
| Unmitigated damages and punitive mischaracterization | Malicious discharge justifies unmitigated damages | Damages should be mitigated; unmitigated front pay is punitive | Unmitigated damages do not constitute punitive damages; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason County Board of Education v. State Superintendent of Schools, 170 W.Va. 632, 295 S.E.2d 719 (West Virginia 1982) (malicious discharge exception to mitigation applies to back pay; burden on employer)
- Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 224 W.Va. 160, 680 S.E.2d 791 (West Virginia 2009) (remains applicable; circuit court may ruling on reinstatement vs front pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Voorhees v. Guyan Machinery Company, 191 W.Va. 450, 446 S.E.2d 672 (West Virginia 1994) (offer of reinstatement when further association is offensive; jury may consider in damages)
- Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 W.Va. 656, 413 S.E.2d 897 (West Virginia 1991) (two-step punitive damages analysis; factors for assessing excessiveness; remittitur considerations)
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 187 W.Va. 457, 419 S.E.2d 870 (West Virginia 1992) (guides punitive damages framework and ratio considerations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (due process limits on punitive damages; reasonableness standard)
- Mason County Board of Education v. State Superintendent of Schools, 170 W.Va. 632, 295 S.E.2d 719 (West Virginia 1982) (malicious discharge mitigation rule; foundational to damages discussion)
- Peters v Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 224 W.Va. 160, 680 S.E.2d 791 (West Virginia 2009) (remains controlling for reinstatement vs front pay submission to jury)
- Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation, 178 W.Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (West Virginia 1986) (prima facie case framework for WVHRA discrimination)
- Johnson v. Killmer, 219 W.Va. 320, 633 S.E.2d 265 (West Virginia 2006) (elements of prima facie case under WVHRA)