# West Virginia University v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission

> West Virginia Supreme Court · July 12, 2005 · 217 W. Va. 174

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603736

## Case

- **Full name:** WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY/RUBY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant Below, Appellee v. WEST VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, on Behalf of Peggy J. Prince, and Peggy J. Prince, Individually, Appellees Below Peggy J. PRINCE, Appellee Below, Appellant
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 12, 2005
- **Citations:** 217 W. Va. 174; 617 S.E.2d 524
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Starcher
- **Judges:** Starcher
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603736

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603736. Public record. Not legal advice.