SER Brandon Willis v. City of Kenova, 16-0344

Background

Willis was a Kenova police officer from Oct. 2008 and resigned by letter effective Aug. 13, 2014, after a meeting on Aug. 8, 2014 with the chief, mayor, and city attorney.
Willis alleges the Aug. 8 meeting was coercive: he was interrogated, denied counsel, threatened with loss of certification, stripped of badge/weapon/uniform, and effectively suspended; he claims he resigned under duress.
Willis waited about 14 months after the meeting (Oct. 2015) to request a hearing before the Kenova Policemen’s Civil Service Commission and filed a mandamus petition in Feb. 2016 seeking reinstatement, back pay, and fees.
The City filled Willis’s former position after his resignation.
The circuit court held a hearing, found Willis knowingly resigned (was aware of civil service rights), concluded Willis lacked a clear legal right to the relief sought, and dismissed the mandamus petition as untimely and because an adequate legal remedy existed.
Willis appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding resignation distinguishes this case from civil-service termination cases and Willis unreasonably delayed asserting rights, prejudicing the City/third parties.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Willis had a clear legal right to mandamus relief (reinstatement, back pay, fees) after resigning	Willis says resignation was coerced and thus civil service protections and mandamus relief apply	City says Willis resigned knowingly; no clear right to reinstatement because he voluntarily left and failed to invoke protections timely	Held: No clear legal right; resignation distinguishes this from discharge cases, so mandamus relief denied
Whether Willis was entitled to a civil-service pre-deprivation hearing despite resigning	Willis contends statutory/constitutional protections attach and City must provide hearing regardless of timing	City contends protections attach to discipline/termination, not a voluntary resignation; Willis elected to resign instead of invoking rights	Held: Civil service protections do not apply to a clear voluntary resignation; court need not reach full statutory interpretation because resignation is dispositive
Whether mandamus is barred by unreasonable delay (laches)	Willis argues employer must provide protections and delay should not bar relief	City argues 14-month delay in requesting hearing (and further delay to file mandamus) was unreasonable and prejudiced the replacement officer	Held: Delay was unreasonable; laches applies—Willis waived rights and relief would prejudice innocent third party (replacement officer)
Whether an adequate remedy at law exists (wrongful termination or other relief)	Willis claims mandamus is proper to secure civil service protections	City contends an adequate remedy exists (wrongful termination/ordinary legal claims)	Held: Court need not finally decide because first prong (clear right) failed, but court noted an adequate remedy exists and mandamus is inappropriate here

Key Cases Cited

Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W. Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (mandamus elements)
Ewing v. Bd. of Educ. of Cty. of Summers, 202 W. Va. 228, 503 S.E.2d 541 (standard of appellate review for mandamus is de novo)
State ex rel. Dickerson v. The City of Logan, 221 W. Va. 1, 650 S.E.2d 100 (mandamus appropriate where officer discharged without reasons or hearing)
Alden v. Harpers Ferry Police Civil Serv. Comm’n, 209 W. Va. 83, 543 S.E.2d 364 (timeliness recommendation for requesting civil service hearing)
State ex rel. Waller Chemicals, Inc. v. McNutt, 152 W. Va. 186, 160 S.E.2d 170 (mandamus may be refused for unreasonable delay that prejudices others)
Herzog v. Fox, 141 W. Va. 849, 93 S.E.2d 239 (laches factors and equitable consideration for delay)