Date: 07-03-2025

Case Style:

Tammy L. Gilhuys v. Hardy County 911 Center

Case Number: 22-ICA-258

Judge: Not Available

Court: Circuit Court, Hardy County, West Virginia

Plaintiff's Attorney: Harley Staggers, Jr.

Defendant's Attorney: Jeffrey Zurbuch

Description: Moorefield, West Virginia employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an employment discrimination theory.

e petitioner is the deputy director of the Office of Emergency Management/Hardy County 911 Center (Center). As deputy director, the petitioner is an administratively exempt, salaried county employee. She assists and reports to her supervisor, the director of the Center, Paul Lewis. The petitioner performs administrative duties and is occasionally called in to work as a dispatcher. She generally works a regular schedule of Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with an hour off for lunch. Dispatch operators, including the dispatch supervisor, are hourly, non-exempt employees who work twelve-hour shifts and forty-hour weeks. They cannot leave the Center for lunch. In his role as director, Mr. Lewis periodically proposed recommended raises for Center employees to the Hardy County Commission. Although the petitioner received regular raises over the years, she believed those raises were, unfairly, less than the raises received by younger employees and male employees. Accordingly, on January 6, 2021, the petitioner filed a complaint asserting two claims: age discrimination and gender discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, West Virginia Code §§ 5-11-1 to -20 (WVHRA).[2] The parties engaged in discovery, including written discovery, the petitioner's deposition, and a deposition of Mr. Lewis as the designated representative of the Center.[3] In written discovery, information and documents related to salary and wage information for the dispatchers and the petitioner were provided. See Gilhuys, 2023 WL 7203387, at *1-2 (discussing relevant compensation information). At the June 17, 2021, deposition, Mr. Lewis, as the Center representative, was instructed by the respondent's counsel not to answer certain questions related to, among other things, his personal religious beliefs, as being outside the scope of the topics identified in the deposition notice. As a result, the petitioner filed a motion to reconvene the Center representative deposition (petitioner's motion). In her August 17, 2021, deposition, the petitioner acknowledged that she retained the same position and the same hours throughout her employment. She also acknowledged that she received raises during her employment. She could not identify examples of age or gender discrimination; however, the petitioner contended that Mr. Lewis told her that the Bible states men are superior to women, and she alleged that Mr. Lewis was generally hostile toward her.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: