Case Name and Citation
David Christopher Keffer v. Fayette County Board of Education
No. 22-631 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, October 25, 2024)

Procedural Posture
Petitioner, David Christopher Keffer, appealed the Circuit Court of Fayette County’s grant of summary judgment to the Fayette County Board of Education in a retaliatory discharge and malicious prosecution case. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment.

Relevant Facts

• Keffer, the Board’s Director of Operations, was terminated in 2018 after being found removing copper piping from a closed school building and selling it for scrap, actions resulting in his indictment.

• Keffer alleged his termination was in retaliation for reporting misconduct involving the spouse of a Board employee.

• The Board contended that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, supported by surveillance footage, and evidence of unauthorized actions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Board’s stated reason for Keffer’s termination was pretextual and constituted retaliatory discharge under the Harless common law claim.

2. Whether Keffer was subjected to a hostile work environment under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA).

3. Whether the Board procured Keffer’s prosecution to support a malicious prosecution claim.

Holding(s)

1. The retaliatory discharge claim failed due to lack of evidence showing decisionmakers were aware of Keffer’s alleged whistleblowing.

2. The hostile work environment claim failed because Keffer was not a member of a protected class under the HRA.

3. The malicious prosecution claim failed as Keffer’s pretrial diversion agreement was not a favorable termination, and the Board did not procure the prosecution.

Reasoning

• Retaliatory Discharge: The Court affirmed that there was no evidence showing that Board officials involved in Keffer’s termination knew about his alleged whistleblowing, a required element to prove retaliation.

• Hostile Work Environment: The claim was invalid as Keffer did not allege discrimination based on a protected class or activity under the HRA.

• Malicious Prosecution: The pretrial diversion agreement did not meet the favorable termination standard for a malicious prosecution claim. Furthermore, the Board’s role in reporting the incident did not equate to procuring prosecution, as the decision to prosecute rested with law enforcement.

Outcome
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing all claims against the Fayette County Board of Education.