Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood v. Sharon Griffith and Lou Ann Wall

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 2015No. 13-1084Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DAVIS, Justice, joined by WORKMAN, Chief Justice,

concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:

While I agree with the plurality’s resolution of the issue in the ease sub judice affirming Constellium’s liability for a hostile work environment, I disagree with the portion of the opinion concluding that the facts were insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Because I believe there was adequate evidence to support the jury’s decision on punitive damages, I respectfully dissent from the plurality’s contrary conclusion.

In its decision of this ease, the plurality correctly deferred to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kolstad v. American Dental Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Hanlon v. ChambersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1995

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API