W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources v. E.H., 16-0781

Background

This long-running institutional reform case began in 1981 to remedy deficient conditions at the State psychiatric hospitals (Bateman and Sharpe); parties entered a 2009 Agreed Order requiring specified pay increases for certain direct-care classifications (Attachment B).
Attachment B called for set increases: Health Service Trainees +$1,000; Health Service Workers and Assistants +$2,000, effective January 1, 2013.
Circuit court orders in 2012 and June 3, 2014 reiterated that employees hired or promoted on or after January 1, 2013 were entitled to those raises effective January 1, 2013 and required retroactive compensation for those who did not receive them.
The Department implemented a broader salary plan effective January 1, 2015 (to address recruitment/retention) but did not retroactively compensate employees for 1/1/2013–12/31/2014; its spot-checks and representations to respondents were inconsistent.
Respondents moved to enforce and for sanctions; the circuit court ordered identification, recalculation, and payment of retroactive wages/OT/retirement for employees hired/promoted between 1/1/2013 and 12/31/2014, set deadlines, and imposed contempt sanctions for noncompliance.
The Department appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding the July 21, 2016 order enforced prior orders and sanctions were within the trial court’s discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dept. failed to retroactively compensate H.S. trainees/workers/assistants for 1/1/2013–12/31/2014	Respondents: Dept. did not pay the Attachment B increases to employees hired/promoted in that period and therefore must make retroactive payments	Dept.: Implementing raises as of 1/1/2015 satisfied obligations; no employees remained who qualified for retroactive pay	Held: Dept. failed to retroactively compensate those employed/hired/promoted in the relevant period; court enforced retroactive pay per prior orders
Whether July 21, 2016 order exceeded or altered prior orders	Respondents: Order merely enforces clear terms of prior orders requiring raises effective 1/1/2013	Dept.: New order imposed "new terms" and expanded scope beyond June 3, 2014 order	Held: Order did not alter scope; it enforced earlier orders requiring retroactive pay; no abuse of discretion
Whether sanctions/contempt were appropriate without additional opportunity to comply	Respondents: Dept. had ample notice and prior orders provided contempt provision; sanctions appropriate	Dept.: Should have been given an opportunity to comply with the purportedly new terms before sanctions	Held: Sanctions were appropriate; circuit court acted within inherent contempt and enforcement powers; Dept. had prior notice
Whether former employees (no longer employed) are entitled to retroactive pay	Respondents: Pay increase applies to those hired/promoted in period regardless of current employment; retroactivity required for fairness and to enforce orders	Dept.: No justification for awarding former employees a "windfall"; goal was retention of current staff	Held: Former employees hired/promoted between 1/1/2013 and 12/31/2014 are entitled to retroactive compensation per court orders

Key Cases Cited

Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1996) (standards of review: abuse of discretion for final orders; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for law)
West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources v. E.H., 236 W. Va. 194, 778 S.E.2d 643 (W. Va. 2015) (background and prior holdings enforcing DHHR compliance with institutional reform orders)
In re Morrissey, 305 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2002) (courts possess inherent contempt power to enforce orders)
In re Frieda Q., 230 W. Va. 652, 742 S.E.2d 68 (W. Va. 2013) (discussing contempt and court authority)
Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W. Va. 381, 472 S.E.2d 827 (W. Va. 1996) (trial court’s broad authority to enforce orders and sanction noncompliance)
Clark v. Druckman, 218 W. Va. 427, 624 S.E.2d 864 (W. Va. 2005) (trial court’s inherent power to enforce prior orders)