John L. Kiefer v. Town of Ansted, W. Va.
15-0766
| W. Va. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- John L. Kiefer was hired as Ansted’s Chief of Police in July 2013 as an at-will employee; the Mayor had unilateral authority to remove him.
- In early August 2014, Mayor Hobbs learned Kiefer had hidden a town patrol car behind Kiefer’s home and taken keys to other patrol cars, leaving the town without available police patrols.
- Mayor Hobbs immediately terminated Kiefer for untrustworthiness and abandoning police service.
- Kiefer sued in Fayette County circuit court alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Harless), asserting he had been fired in retaliation for seeking town financial records via FOIA to investigate alleged irregularities.
- The Town moved for summary judgment, submitting Mayor Hobbs’s affidavit and documentary evidence showing the Town had produced requested financial documents and that Kiefer (through counsel) had later made overlapping FOIA/production requests but did not retrieve copied materials.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Town finding Kiefer failed to identify a clear public policy supporting his claim, failed to raise genuine factual disputes, and the Town had an overriding business justification for termination; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kiefer stated a Harless-type wrongful discharge claim based on filing FOIA requests | Kiefer: termination was retaliation for requesting records under WV FOIA, which serves public policy (exposing government misconduct) | Town: WV has not recognized FOIA-based public-policy wrongful discharge; Kiefer failed to identify a recognized clear public policy | Held: Failed — Kiefer did not identify an established public policy; claim fails the clarity element of Swears |
| Whether Kiefer raised triable issues of fact to defeat summary judgment | Kiefer: disputed Town’s account and claimed noncompliance with document requests and Town Charter removal procedure | Town: produced affidavit and evidence; Kiefer offered only unsworn allegations and no affidavits/evidence creating genuine issues | Held: Failed — plaintiff did not present specific factual evidence as required by Rule 56 to rebut summary judgment evidence |
| Whether the Town had an overriding business justification for firing Kiefer | Kiefer: termination was retaliatory (related to FOIA request) | Town: Mayor reasonably concluded Kiefer abandoned police duty and could not be trusted after hiding patrol car and seizing keys; legitimate business reason to terminate | Held: Town justified — overriding justification element satisfied; termination lawful |
| Whether Charter §19 removal procedure was violated | Kiefer: Mayor did not follow the written-service requirement for removals under the Town Charter | Town: contention was unsupported by affidavit or admissible evidence | Held: Court did not err in not addressing further — Kiefer failed to produce evidence to create a trial issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. First Nat'l Bank in Fairmont, 162 W.Va. 116 (1978) (recognizes public-policy exception to at-will employment)
- Swears v. R.M. Roach & Sons, Inc., 225 W.Va. 699 (2010) (articulates four-part test for Harless claims)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 (1994) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment requires more than a scintilla of evidence)