Fitzwater v. Fola Coal Company, LLC, 2:10-cv-00910

Consolidated WVHRA age-discrimination cases arising from a February 2010 reduction-in-force at Fola Coal Co. involving eight named plaintiffs.
Fola laid off 167 of 366 employees due to adverse market conditions and legal/operational constraints, while asserting the layoffs were based on performance, attitude, and seniority.
Handbook cited controlling factors: qualification, ability, attitude, attendance, and length of service; attendance only impacted layoffs if formally disciplined.
Plaintiffs allege age-based discrimination, with claims that younger workers were rehired and older workers were not, and some claim benefits/retirement concerns motivated layoffs.
Defendants offered a nondiscriminatory reason: the cuts were necessary due to market conditions and court decisions, using three criteria; plaintiffs seek to show pretext through deposition evidence and statistics.
Court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of age discrimination under WVHRA and did not prove pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case of age discrimination under WVHRA	Plaintiffs allege age-based layoffs.	Fola’s decisions were based on performance, attitude, and length of service.	No triable issue; no adequate nexus shown between age and layoffs.
Pretext for discrimination	Depositions suggest age bias and improper considerations.	Reasons were legitimate business decisions not shown as pretext.	No reasonable juror could find pretext based on the record.
Evidence of retirement/benefits avoidance as motive	Layoffs aimed to avoid retirement benefits and vacation time.	Even if true, not a WVHRA violation absent proxy for age or discriminatory motive.	Not shown to be a discriminatorily motivated factor under WVHRA.
Rehiring and selective recall of younger workers	Older employees were replaced; younger workers were rehired more often.	Rehiring does not establish discrimination and plaintiffs are also over-40.	Rehiring evidence insufficient to prove discrimination.

Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home, 193 W. Va. 475 (1995) ( WVHRA/age discrimination framework; inference required, not direct proof)
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (pension status as a potential proxy; ADEA scope and pretext guidance)
Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1994) (employer business decisions are not second-guessed; pretext analysis)
E.E.O.C. v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1992) (non-judicial review of business decisions; not required to show prudence)
Evans v. Tech. App. & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (substantive pleading requirements for discrimination claims; need for concrete evidence)
Young v. Bellofram Corp., 705 S.E.2d 560 (W. Va. 2010) (in same protected class, disparate treatment within work force not dispositive)
King v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hosp., 159 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1998) (judicial estoppel impact on WVHRA claims when benefits received)