Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc., aka Potomac Center, Inc. v. L.K., By Her Guardian and Conservator, Kelly Young, and D.S., By His Guardian and Conservator, Kelly Young, 902 S.E.2d 434

Plaintiffs L.K. and D.S., both severely disabled children, resided at Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, a residential behavioral health facility, in 2013-2014.
Plaintiffs, through their guardian, filed suit alleging abuse and neglect by Potomac staff, asserting negligence and violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (namely, disability discrimination and hostile environment).
A 2014 investigation by state agencies revealed widespread allegations of abuse at Potomac, resulting in criminal charges against staff and temporary closure of the facility.
A jury found for plaintiffs on negligence and hostile environment, awarding $3.5 million in damages. Potomac’s post-trial motions were denied.
Potomac appealed, principally contesting its status as a "place of public accommodations" under the Human Rights Act, the jury instructions, and the admissibility of investigative reports detailing abuse of children other than plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding Potomac was not a place of public accommodation under the Act and that the investigative reports were improperly admitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Potomac is a place of public accommodations under the WV Human Rights Act	Potomac qualifies as a place of public accommodation due to its statutory creation and public funding	Potomac isn’t open to the general public; it serves only selected, screened children	Potomac is not a place of public accommodations
Whether the circuit court erred by allowing a hostile environment claim under the Human Rights Act	Hostile environment claims are valid under W.Va. Code § 5-11-9(7); complaint provided sufficient notice	Hostile environment not a recognized claim for public accommodations and insufficient notice was given	Hostile environment claim is viable under § 5-11-9(7); complaint gave sufficient notice
Admissibility of 2014 investigative reports about other children’s abuse	Reports were relevant to show hostile environment and negligence	Reports were irrelevant, hearsay, and highly prejudicial as they referred to non-plaintiff incidents	Admission of entire investigative reports was reversible error; new trial required
Fairness of evidentiary rulings at trial	Plaintiffs' presentation of full investigative reports was appropriate	Defendant was unfairly limited in presenting alternative evidence (about plaintiffs’ prior trauma)	Circuit court failed to ensure a fair trial due to imbalance in evidentiary rulings

Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 459 S.E.2d 329 (W. Va. 1995) (summary judgment standard)
Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 225 S.E.2d 218 (W. Va. 1976) (standard of review on new trial motion)
Michael v. Appalachian Heating, LLC, 701 S.E.2d 116 (W. Va. 2010) (hostile environment claims under Human Rights Act)
McDougal v. McCammon, 455 S.E.2d 788 (W. Va. 1995) (trial court discretion in evidence admission)
State v. Derr, 451 S.E.2d 731 (W. Va. 1994) (balancing test under evidence rules)
Lacy v. CSX Transp. Inc., 520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999) (business records hearsay exception)
State v. Delorenzo, 885 S.E.2d 645 (W. Va. 2022) (fair trial obligation)
Skaff v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 444 S.E.2d 39 (W. Va. 1994) (definition of public accommodations under Human Rights Act)
Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Department v. State ex rel. State of West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 309 S.E.2d 342 (W. Va. 1983) (public service and public accommodations)