Knotts v. Grafton City Hospital
237 W. Va. 169
W. Va.2016Background
- Martha Knotts, hired as a hospital housekeeper at age 58, was fired in 2012 at age 65 for alleged violations of the hospital’s patient‑confidentiality/HIPAA policy after two observed interactions with a patient and her son.
- The hospital investigated (without initially interviewing Knotts), recommended termination, and Knotts was discharged the day after the incident; an internal review upheld the termination.
- Knotts sued under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), alleging disparate‑treatment age discrimination (age 40+ protected class).
- At summary judgment the hospital argued Knotts failed to make a prima facie case and offered a legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason (policy violation); Knotts pointed to allegedly more lenient treatment of other employees and that she was replaced by substantially younger hires.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment relying on Young v. Bellofram Corp., excluding comparator/replacement evidence because those employees were over 40 (same protected class).
- The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s “substantially younger” rule from O’Connor and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WV courts should apply O’Connor’s “substantially younger” standard in WVHRA age claims | Knotts: comparator/replacement evidence showing substantially younger employees and younger replacements raises an inference of age discrimination | Hospital: comparators/replacements are all age 40+ (in protected class), so under Young such evidence is irrelevant to prima facie showing | Court adopted O’Connor: plaintiff may use evidence that a replacement or comparator was “substantially younger” to satisfy the third prong of Conaway’s prima facie test; Young’s over‑40/under‑40 rule overruled |
| Whether Knotts made a prima facie case as applied | Knotts: presented comparators and replacements who were substantially younger to raise inference of discrimination | Hospital: maintains legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and that Knotts cannot establish inference | Court remanded for the trial court to reassess prima facie showing and, if established, proceed with burden‑shifting analysis (employer’s reason then pretext inquiry) |
| Definition/threshold for “substantially younger” | Knotts: age gaps here (12 and 24 years) sufficient | Hospital: argued that being over 40 makes comparators irrelevant | Court: declined bright‑line rule but noted ~10+ years often deemed substantial; determination is fact‑specific |
| Effect of federal decisions (Gross) on applying O’Connor | Knotts relied on O’Connor; amici urged adoption | Hospital argued Gross limits O’Connor’s persuasiveness | Court: Gross does not overrule O’Connor; adopted O’Connor for WVHRA claims and distinguished Gross’s mixed‑motive holding from this disparate‑treatment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (establishes “substantially younger” replacement/comparator test in ADEA cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
- Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164 (W. Va. 1986) (prima facie test under WVHRA)
- Young v. Bellofram Corp., 227 W. Va. 53 (W. Va. 2010) (prior West Virginia rule excluding comparators within the protected class; overruled)
- Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home, 193 W. Va. 472 (W. Va. 1994) (clarifies prima facie inference requirement and pretext inquiry)
- Kanawha Valley Regional Transp. Auth. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 181 W. Va. 675 (W. Va. 1989) (articulates burden‑shifting under WVHRA)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (holds ADEA mixed‑motive claims require but‑for causation; court distinguished Gross from O’Connor)