Wells v. KEY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 703 S.E.2d 518

Appellant Wells sued her former employer West Virginia Wireless for age discrimination after her termination from the Administrative Manager position in 2004.
Nelson, a younger, older employee in the technical/operations side, also alleged age discrimination and was terminated the same day; his claim was settled before trial.
The circuit court granted in limine exclusion of Nelson's termination and discrimination evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to West Virginia Wireless.
At trial, Wells was allowed to present evidence about the administrative/sales side and about the retention of a younger employee, Sheila Wilson, to support a discriminatory-motive theory.
The jury returned a verdict for West Virginia Wireless; Wells moved for a new trial, which the circuit court denied, reaffirming Nelson's evidence exclusion.
On appeal, Wells challenges the exclusion of Nelson's termination evidence, arguing McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp. supports admissibility of non-litigant discrimination testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Nelson evidence admissible under McKenzie?	Nelson's termination showed similar discriminatory conduct; admissible to prove intent.	Nelson's termination was dissimilar in department, decision-makers, and facts; not relevant.	Exclusion affirmed; Nelson evidence too dissimilar to Wells's claim.
Was the Nelson evidence properly limited under Rules 401-403?	Nelson's demise demonstrates a pattern supporting motive.	Nelson's incident would confuse jurors and mislead them about Wells's claim.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.
Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in applying the McKenzie framework across two departments with different supervisors?	Both terminations reflect age-based discrimination by the same overall employer intent.	Two separate decisions by different supervisors in different departments; not probative of Wells's claim.	No abuse; determinations were dissimilar and not probative.
What is the standard of review for evidentiary rulings in a motion for a new trial?	Abuse of discretion standard should favor Wells on arguably admissible evidence.	Rulings given broad discretion should be affirmed absent clear error.	Abuse of discretion standard applied; findings affirmed.

McKenzie v. Carroll International Corp., 216 W.Va. 686 (2004) (non-litigant witnesses may testify about discrimination if relevant and not too remote or dissimilar)
Williams v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 215 W.Va. 15 (2003) (two-pronged review: abuse of discretion for rulings; clearly erroneous findings for facts)
Reynolds v. City Hosp., Inc., 207 W.Va. 101 (2000) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Miller v. Lambert, 196 W.Va. 24 (1995) (relevancy standard; abuse of discretion in exclusion of relevant evidence)
Covington v. Smith, 213 W.Va. 309 (2003) (discretion in evidentiary rulings; balancing probative value against prejudice)
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97 (1995) (deference to trial court; standards for reviewing trial rulings)