Lexplug logoLexplug

Tiernan v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
506 S.E.2d 578 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Free Speech Clause of the West Virginia Constitution does not provide a basis for a public policy wrongful discharge claim against a private sector employer. Additionally, providing truthful information constitutes an absolute defense to a claim of tortious interference with a business relationship.


Facts:

  • Betty A. Tiernan was a longtime nurse and manager at Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) with an excellent work history.
  • In February 1994, Tiernan wrote a letter to a local newspaper editor criticizing CAMC's budgetary cutbacks.
  • CAMC officials spoke with Tiernan about the letter, cautioning her but assuring her there would be no repercussions; she subsequently received a positive performance review and a raise.
  • On May 2, 1994, Tiernan brought an uninvited newspaper reporter into a private, internal CAMC management meeting regarding a potential merger.
  • CAMC terminated Tiernan's employment hours later for the stated reason of bringing the reporter to the closed meeting.
  • After her termination, Tiernan secured part-time work at Arthur B. Hodges Center (ABHC), a nursing home affiliated with CAMC, and also began working as a union organizer.
  • CAMC learned of Tiernan's dual roles and contacted ABHC, informing them that Tiernan was working as a union organizer.
  • Upon receiving this information from CAMC, ABHC ceased to provide work to Tiernan.

Procedural Posture:

  • Betty A. Tiernan filed a lawsuit against Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
  • The complaint included claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based on the state constitutional right to free speech, and tortious interference with a business relationship.
  • CAMC moved for summary judgment on all claims.
  • The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of CAMC, dismissing Tiernan's claims.
  • Tiernan, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's summary judgment orders to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with CAMC as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Free Speech Clause of the West Virginia Constitution create a substantial public policy that limits a private employer's right to terminate an at-will employee for their speech?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Davis

No. The Free Speech Clause of the West Virginia Constitution is not applicable to a private sector employer, and in the absence of a statute, an employee does not have a cause of action for wrongful discharge against a private employer for exercising their state constitutional right of free speech. The court reasoned that public policy wrongful discharge claims must be based on pre-existing, established sources like constitutions or statutes. While such claims have been recognized for public employees, the court joins the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in holding that constitutional free speech protections require state action and do not extend to private employment. Extending these rights to the private sector is a legislative function. The court also adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772, holding that providing truthful information is an absolute defense to a tortious interference claim. Since CAMC's statement to ABHC that Tiernan was a union organizer was true, the interference claim fails.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Starcher

Yes. A public policy derived from the state constitution's guarantee of free speech should protect a private employee from retaliatory discharge, especially for speech that does not unfairly harm an employer's legitimate business concerns. The majority's holding is overly broad and chills the exercise of fundamental democratic rights by allowing employers to fire employees for any speech, even on matters of public concern unrelated to the workplace. The court should have adopted a narrower, balancing approach instead of foreclosing all such claims. Furthermore, adopting truth as an absolute defense to tortious interference is a grave error that gives employers 'carte blanche' to maliciously 'blacklist' former employees. Truthfulness should be only one factor considered under the existing standard from Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co., not a complete shield for improper conduct.


Concurring - Justice McCuskey

No. The West Virginia Constitution's Free Speech Clause was clearly intended to protect citizens from governmental interference, not to create a private cause of action between individuals. The facts show Tiernan was terminated for violating a workplace rule by bringing a reporter into a private meeting, not for exercising her right to free speech. The dissent's position on tortious interference is dangerous, as muzzling the exchange of truthful employment information would jeopardize workplace safety and the ability of employers to properly vet applicants. Adopting truth as an absolute defense brings common sense and uniformity to employment law, analogous to its role in defamation claims.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Workman

Yes. The majority's sweeping holding that the state constitution's Free Speech Clause is inapplicable to private employers is legally and historically wrong for West Virginia, which has a tradition of providing robust protection for individual rights. The case law from other jurisdictions cited by the majority involves speech with an 'employment-related nexus,' whereas the majority's rule would permit firing an employee for speech completely unrelated to their job. It is absurd to suggest a statute is needed to give effect to the state's own constitution, which is the highest source of public policy. Likewise, making truth an absolute defense to tortious interference departs from existing precedent and licenses malicious conduct intended to cause economic harm.



Analysis:

This decision firmly aligns West Virginia with the majority of states in requiring state action for constitutional free speech claims, thereby closing the door on a potential expansion of public policy wrongful discharge torts into the private sector. By refusing to extend these protections, the court reinforces the traditional at-will employment doctrine and places the burden on the legislature to create such rights for private employees. The adoption of truth as an absolute defense to tortious interference also clarifies the law, providing employers with a strong shield when providing references, which may encourage more open communication between former and prospective employers but could also protect malicious conduct if the information is technically true. This ruling significantly limits two potential avenues of recovery for terminated employees in the private sector.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tiernan v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"