Martinez v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
2017 W. Va. LEXIS 510
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Martinez, a Hispanic employee, was terminated by Asplundh in September 2013 for alleged theft; he denied wrongdoing and alleged discriminatory treatment.
- Martinez filed an administrative complaint, received a right-to-sue, and sued in state court under the West Virginia Human Rights Act; the case was removed to federal court.
- While the claim accrued in 2013, two West Virginia statutes limiting certain damages became effective June 8, 2015: W.Va. Code § 55-7E-3 (eliminating the malice exception to mitigation for back/front pay and assigning front-pay determinations to the judge) and W.Va. Code § 55-7-29 (evidentiary standard, bifurcated procedure, and caps for punitive damages).
- The federal district court certified two questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court asking whether those statutes apply at trial when the wrongful-act date predates the statutes but trial occurs after their effective date.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the statutes are remedial/procedural (thus applicable) or substantive/vested (thus not retroactive absent clear legislative intent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez) | Defendant's Argument (Asplundh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether W.Va. Code § 55-7E-3 (mitigation/elimination of malice exception; front/back pay rules) applies to a trial after its effective date when the discharge occurred before that date | Application would be impermissibly retroactive because rules limiting damages are substantive and impair vested rights | A plaintiff has no vested right to damages until awarded; statute speaks of "award" so it governs awards made after effective date | Yes. Court held § 55-7E-3 is remedial (affects remedies, not substantive rights) and applies to trials after the statute’s effective date |
| Whether W.Va. Code § 55-7-29 (punitive damages standard, procedure, and caps) applies to a trial after its effective date when the wrongful act occurred before that date | Application would retroactively impair the plaintiff’s substantive right to punitive damages | No vested right to punitive damages before judgment; statute governs awards made after its effective date | Yes. Court held § 55-7-29 is remedial; punitive-damages rules and caps apply to awards rendered after the statute’s effective date |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason County Bd. of Educ. v. State Superintendent of Sch., 170 W.Va. 632, 295 S.E.2d 719 (W. Va. 1982) (established West Virginia’s former "malice exception" to mitigation for wage awards)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont, 198 W.Va. 329, 480 S.E.2d 538 (W. Va. 1996) (statute diminishing substantive rights generally not applied retroactively)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (retroactivity inquiry: whether new law attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
- Sizemore v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 159 W.Va. 100, 219 S.E.2d 912 (W. Va. 1975) (law is not retroactive merely because it addresses facts predating enactment)
- Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice, 230 W.Va. 105, 736 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2012) (application of mitigation principles to front pay)
- Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 224 W.Va. 160, 680 S.E.2d 791 (W. Va. 2009) (front-pay mitigation principles)
- Cassella v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 234 W.Va. 485, 766 S.E.2d 432 (W. Va. 2014) (presumption statutes are prospective; procedural statutes may apply retroactively)