Opinion ID: 2395704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count OneHostile Workplace

Text: The first count contained in the Complaint is for hostile workplace. The Appellants alleged that Mrs. Roth was subjected to improper and sexually explicit conduct by her superiors ... thereby creating a hostile and abusive environment for employment all in violation of West Virginia Human Rights Act. W. Va.Code § 5-11-1 et seq.  [1] According to the allegations, Defendant DeFelice Care authorized, directed and acquiesced in the allowance of pervasive, explicit and habitual harassment which included but is not limited to: subjecting her to such sexually explicit conduct, threats of loss of license, loss of employment and termination for unwanted sexually explicit conduct she observed. Although not expressly alleged in the Complaint, it appears that the hostile workplace claim is based upon Mrs. Roth being in a protected gender class, given the use of the terms sexual discrimination and/or harassment in the averments. The Court previously has held that [a]n employee may state a claim for hostile environment sexual harassment if unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Syl. Pt. 7, Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995). [2] The circuit court, relying upon the law enunciated in Hanlon, found that the allegations contained in the Complaint consisting of subjecting ... [Mrs. Roth] to such sexually explicit conduct, threats of loss of license, loss of employment and termination for unwanted sexually explicit conduct she observed[,]... refers to the alleged incident where Tricia Roth walked in on Kelly and DeFelice.... There is nothing here that took place because Tricia Roth is a female. Therefore, there is not hostile work environment claim. See id. We disagree with the circuit court's conclusion that, based upon a review of the allegations in the Complaint, what transpired with the Appellant was not due to her gender. [3] Rather, we find the Appellants sufficiently pled their cause of action for hostile workplace to survive a motion to dismiss made pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This Court has previously found that motions to dismiss are generally viewed with disfavor because the complaint is to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and its allegations are to be taken as true. Sticklen v. Kittle, 168 W.Va. 147, 163-64, 287 S.E.2d 148, 157 (1981). Undeniably, the Appellants must still develop sufficient facts in order ultimately prevail on this claim, but it does not appear beyond doubt to the Court that the Appellants can prove no set of facts in support of Mrs. Roth's claim which would entitle her to relief. Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman, 160 W.Va. at 530, 236 S.E.2d at 207. As, however, Justice Cleckley, writing for the majority in Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., stated: The primary purpose of these provisions [referring to the provisions of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 8] is rooted in fair notice. Under Rule 8, a complaint must be intelligibly sufficient for a circuit court or an opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and, if so, what it is. Although entitlement to relief must be shown, a plaintiff is not required to set out facts upon which the claim is based. 194 W.Va. at 776, 461 S.E.2d at 522. [4]