Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood v. Sharon Griffith and Lou Ann Wall
West Virginia Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLoughry, Justice
I once again express my staunch disagreement with the majority’s baseless conclusion that the respondents advanced a viable gender discrimination claim. Faced with an opportunity on rehearing to correct its initial mishandling of this verdict, a majority of this Court refuses to apply well-established principles of employment law and common sense, as more fully explained below.
At the outset, let me be clear that my concurrence is limited strictly to the striking of punitive damages due solely to the absence of an actionable claim in the first instance. In no way do I subscribe to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.