finding that “clerical and computer work were essential functions” of plaintiff’s job when they accounted “for as much as fifty percent of the duties.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “clerical and computer work were essential functions” of plaintiff’s job when they accounted “for as much as fifty percent of the duties.”
- noting the substitution of the word "disabled” for "handicapped”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, J.,
dissenting:
(Filed July 12, 2005)
I dissent because there was substantial evidence that supported the Human Rights Commission’s ruling.
There is a symbiotic, day-to-day operational relationship between WVU and WVUH that belies any “separate entity” claim. See Syllabus Point 10, Queen v. University Hospitals, 179 W.Va. 95 , 365 S.E.2d 375 (1987).
Moreover, the “separate entity” claim by WVU was never even considered by the HRC — because WVU did not raise it before the HRC.
In the proceedings before the HRC, WVU presented an ever-changing “moving target” series of purported non-discriminatory explanations for its conduct. Each explanation, as it arose, was shot out of the water by the actual evidence.
Then, at the circuit court level, with the record closed, WVU brought up the “separate entity” argument for the first time — at a time when Ms. Prince was precluded from offering more evidence to show the ongoing cooperation of the two entities in discriminatory conduct. Ms. Prince was simply “sandbagged.”
I would affirm the HRC’s ruling. Accordingly, I dissent.