Longanacre v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., 2:20-cv-00587

Plaintiff Maureen Longanacre worked for NCCI Holdings from 2003 until her May 16, 2019 termination; she was 61 at termination.
From 2003–2018 she had no documented performance complaints; in March–November 2018 NCCI alleges some customer complaints, and Longanacre received a November 8, 2018 written warning and a reassignment (no pay cut) to an underwriting filing consultant role.
The dispute consultant role she left was filled in 2018 by a substantially younger employee (43); her post‑termination replacement was 4–5 years younger.
NCCI officials testified they contemplated replacing Longanacre before many alleged performance incidents and provided varying verbal reasons for termination; NCCI produced no written warnings between November 2018 and May 2019.
Longanacre sued for age discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA) and, alternatively, wrongful discharge under Harless; NCCI moved for summary judgment.
The court granted summary judgment on the WVHRA claim (finding NCCI did not meet the Act’s 12‑employee employer definition in West Virginia and Longanacre produced no rebuttal evidence) but denied summary judgment on the Harless wrongful‑discharge claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact on causation, jeopardy, and employer justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of WVHRA (employer definition)	Longanacre asserted age‑discrimination claim under WVHRA.	NCCI argued it was not an "employer" under the Act because it did not employ ≥12 persons in WV in 2018–2019.	Court granted summary judgment for NCCI: Longanacre produced no evidence to rebut NCCI’s showing that it lacked the statutory employee threshold.
Governing test for Harless wrongful‑discharge claim	Apply the WVHRA framework to show age discrimination/wrongful discharge.	Apply Feliciano common‑law wrongful discharge elements.	Court agreed with NCCI that Feliciano governs and set forth its four elements to be proved.
Sufficiency of evidence for Harless claim (causation, jeopardy, overriding justification)	Termination and prior transfer were pretext for age bias; replacements were younger and less experienced; lack of progressive documentation supports inference of age motivation.	Termination was for poor performance, lack of improvement, and professionalism issues; no evidence age motivated decision.	Court denied summary judgment: genuine disputes of material fact exist on causation, jeopardy, and employer justification, so claim proceeds to jury.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and when a reasonable jury could find for nonmoving party)
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (viewing inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir.) (summary judgment discussion)
Harless v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 246 S.E.2d 270 (W. Va. 1978) (recognizing wrongful discharge in violation of substantial public policy)
Feliciano v. 7‑Eleven, Inc., 559 S.E.2d 713 (W. Va. 2001) (articulating elements for Harless wrongful‑discharge claims)
Williamson v. Greene, 490 S.E.2d 23 (W. Va. 1997) (WVHRA constitutes substantial public policy; employer threshold under Act)
O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (age‑discrimination principle regarding “substantially younger” comparators)
Knotts v. Grafton City Hosp., 786 S.E.2d 188 (W. Va. 2016) (adopting the substantially younger rule for age claims)
Burke v. Wetzel Cnty. Comm’n, 815 S.E.2d 520 (W. Va. 2018) (applying Feliciano analysis)
Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332 (6th Cir.) (discussion of what may constitute “substantially younger” in ADEA context)
Hoffmann v. Primedia Special Int’l Publ’ns, 217 F.3d 522 (7th Cir.) (age‑difference guidance when less than ten years)