Opinion ID: 1301127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: exclusiveness of remedy

Text: An ancillary matter which also must be addressed is the exclusiveness of remedies concerning discrimination claims discussed by this Court in Price v. Boone County Ambulance Authority, 175 W.Va. 676, 337 S.E.2d 913 (1985) and provided for by the Legislature in West Virginia Code § 5-11-13(a). This Court held in syllabus point 1 of Price that [a] plaintiff may, as an alternative to filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, initiate an action in circuit court to enforce rights granted by the West Virginia Human Rights Act. 175 W.Va. at 676, 337 S.E.2d at 913. We also stated that [t]hese two avenues are, of course, mutually exclusive, as [West Virginia Code] § 5-11-13(a) makes clear. Id. at 679, 337 S.E.2d at 916. The law concerning the exclusiveness of remedies is clear; a final determination on the merits of a discrimination case before the HRC precludes filing an action before the circuit court and vice versa. However, West Virginia Code § 5-11-13 must be read and considered in its entirety prior to determining whether the proceedings before the HRC have culminated in a final determination on the merits thereby excluding an action in circuit court. West Virginia Code § 5-11-13(b) provides, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a complainant may institute an action against a respondent... at any time within ninety days after the complainant is given notice of a right to sue pursuant to this subsection (b).... If a suit is filed under this section the proceedings pending before the commission shall be deemed concluded. The commission shall give a complainant who has filed a complaint a notice of a right to sue forthwith upon (1) the dismissal of the complaint within one hundred eighty days of the filing thereof for any reason other than a decision on the merits of the case, or (2) the expiration of a period of one hundred eighty days during which period no public hearing has been held on such complaint and the commission and the respondent have not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the complainant is a party: Provided, That the commission shall also give the complainant notice of a right to sue in any case in which, after the expiration of one year, the complaint has not been determined on its merits or a conciliation agreement entered into to which the complainant is a party. Subsection (b) of West Virginia Code § 5-11-13 indicates that the procedures of the HRC are not exclusive when the complainant files a lawsuit in accordance with a notice of right to sue letter issued by the HRC under the following circumstances: 1) when the complaint is dismissed by the HRC within 180 days of filing of the complaint for any reason other than a final decision on the merits; 2) when no public hearing or conciliation agreement occurs within 180 days of filing the complaint; or 3) when, at the expiration of one year, no final determination on the merits or conciliation agreement has occurred. It is also evident that since the HRC routinely issues the notice of right to sue letters after a no probable cause determination, the HRC is complying with this statutory provision because no final determination on the merits, no public hearing and no conciliation agreement has occurred at this stage of the HRC proceedings. Thus, in this case, the Appellee was properly given a notice of right to sue letter after the no probable cause determination was made by the HRC. Such letter did not violate this Court's decision in Price or the exclusiveness of remedy provisions found in West Virginia Code § 5-11-13(a). [9] Based upon the foregoing opinion, we answer the certified questions as formulated. This action is hereby dismissed from the docket of this Court. Certified Questions Answered.