Opinion ID: 1323426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantive IssuePunitive Damages for Retaliatory Discharge

Text: As stated previously, this Court in syllabus point 5 of Harless II held that punitive damages may be recovered in a retaliatory discharge case where the defendant's conduct was wanton, willful or malicious. [11] See also Whalen v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, 769 F.2d 221, 224 n.  (4th Cir.1985), rev'd on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 797 F.2d 170 (4th Cir.1986); Donahue v. Staunton, 471 F.2d 475, 482 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 955, 93 S.Ct. 1419, 35 L.Ed.2d 687 (1973). The jury in the case now before us was properly instructed in accordance with Harless II on the issue of punitive damages. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the appellee's conduct was so egregious as to make it liable for punitive damages. W.Va.Code, 21-5C-7(a) [1971] provides that the willful discharge of or willful discrimination against an employee in retaliation for, inter alia, filing an action for overtime wages is criminal conduct. See note 7 ante. In this case, then, as in Wells v. Smith, ___ W.Va. ___, 297 S.E.2d 872 (1982), one of the infrequently encountered factors supporting an award of punitive damages, specifically unprosecuted criminal conduct, was present: [C]riminal conduct warranting punishment often escapes the notice or interest of the public prosecutor. Citizens faced with an under-zealous prosecutor should not be left without avenue for redress of injuries, particularly in light of our case law which recognizes that punitive damages serve to vindicate the victims of the defendant's wrongful conduct and provide a substitute for personal revenge. It should also be recognized that beyond the personal vindication of the plaintiff, punitive damages also serve the interests of society. This concept is inherent in the deterrent function of punitive damages. Moreover, beyond deterrence, punitive damages also serve to vindicate societal interests. And this is especially true in a case such as this where the tortious act of the defendant rises to the level of criminal conduct which has gone unprosecuted. ___ W.Va. at ___, 297 S.E.2d at 879-80 (citations omitted). Finally, as quoted previously, the determination of motive, such as whether the defendant in a retaliatory discharge case acted wantonly, willfully or maliciously, is a function peculiarly within the province of the fact finder, ... Whalen v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, 769 F.2d 221, 225-26 (4th Cir.1985), rev'd on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 797 F.2d 170 (4th Cir.1986).