Joseph C. McComas II v. Mercer County Board of Education, 16-0734

In April 2015 Joseph C. McComas II sued the Mercer County Board of Education for defamation arising from minutes posted to the Board’s website after an April 10, 2014 personnel hearing at which his employment was terminated.
The posted minutes recited findings that McComas engaged in willful neglect of duty, poor substitute evaluations, inappropriate classroom language, failure to follow lesson plans, and falling asleep in class multiple times.
McComas alleged the posted minutes harmed his ability to obtain new employment and denied the accuracy of the finding that he used inappropriate language.
The Board moved for summary judgment in January 2016, arguing among other defenses qualified immunity.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board on qualified immunity grounds on July 8, 2016; McComas appealed, arguing a genuine factual dispute existed because he had submitted a resignation letter on April 3, 2014.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no prejudicial error and holding McComas waived the resignation argument on appeal and failing to adequately challenge the qualified immunity ruling below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s posting of hearing minutes gave rise to a defamation claim	McComas: posting the minutes was defamatory and prevented him finding employment	Board: invocation of defenses including qualified immunity (and implied accuracy/privilege defenses)	Court did not reach substantive defamation merits because it affirmed on qualified immunity grounds
Whether qualified immunity (or analogous public-actor immunity) bars McComas’s suit	McComas did not meaningfully contest immunity below or on appeal	Board: summary judgment appropriate because immunity applies	Court affirmed summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
Whether McComas’s alleged April 3, 2014 resignation creates a genuine issue of material fact about termination	McComas: he submitted a resignation before the April 10 hearing, which would create a factual dispute	Board: argued summary judgment appropriate; record lacked argument below about resignation	Court: McComas waived the resignation argument because it was not raised below; appeal rejected

Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (W. Va. 1963) (summary judgment appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
Toth v. Bd. of Parks & Recreation Comm’rs, 215 W.Va. 51, 593 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 2003) (summary judgment standards; nonmoving party must show essential elements)
State v. Jessie, 225 W.Va. 21, 689 S.E.2d 21 (W. Va. 2009) (issues not raised below normally forfeited on appeal)