CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a man's complaint against his former employer failed to state a claim and that the Monongalia Circuit Court did not make a mistake when it dismissed his complaint.
"The Circuit Court determined that Mr. (Timothy) Newton’s complaint, alleging wrongful discharge in contravention of substantial public policy, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure," the Nov. 19 opinion states.
On appeal, Newton contended that his complaint was sufficient to save his case from dismissal, but Justice Evan Jenkins wrote that having considered the briefs submitted on appeal, the appendix record, the parties’ oral arguments, and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court did not agree with him. The court found that the Circuit Court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss and it affirmed the Circuit Court's final order.
Justices Margaret Workman and John Hutchison dissented.
Newton began working for Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia in April 2011 as a truck dispatcher and he was an at-will employee. In 2016, he engaged in a physical altercation with another employee and he and that employee were both terminated from their positions.
Newton filed a complaint against Morgantown Machine in 2018, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged and that he was fired after using "only absolutely necessary force to defend himself," the opinion states.
Morgantown Machine argued that Newton's complaint failed to state a claim for wrongful discharge and the Circuit Court granted a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2018. Newton then appealed to the Supreme Court.
"As the Circuit Court found in its order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss, '[d]espite all of plaintiff’s allegations, the right of self-defense exception to the at will employment doctrine does not apply. Plaintiff was engaged in an altercation with a co-worker that did not involve weapons, dangerous circumstances, or a threat of lethal imminent danger,'" Jenkins wrote.
The court found that Newton’s complaint simply fails to contain any facts indicating that he faced lethal imminent danger.
"As such, accepting all well pled facts as true and in favor of Mr. Newton, we find that he has failed to adequately plead the self-defense exception to the at will employment doctrine, and, therefore, he cannot sustain a claim for wrongful termination," Jenkins wrote.
In their dissenting opinion, Hutchison and Workman noted that the majority's opinion ignores basic precepts.
"While the majority pays lip service to these basic precepts in its decision, it proceeds to ignore all of them and conclude that the Circuit Court properly dismissed the petitioner’s complaint," Hutchison wrote. "Had the majority actually taken the time to read the complaint, it would have determined, as I did, that the petitioner satisfied his burden of stating a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because the majority turned a blind eye to our law, as well as the allegations set forth in the petitioner’s complaint, I dissent."
The dissenting opinion states that Newton should have been permitted to pursue his claim for relief.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 18-0653
