Gilhuys v. Hardy County 911 Center: When Lack of Comparators Justifies Summary Judgment Despite Ongoing Discovery in WVHRA Actions

Introduction

In Gilhuys v. Hardy County 911 Center, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia confronted the perennial tension between a plaintiff’s right to fulsome discovery and a defendant’s right to prompt resolution through summary judgment. Tammy L. Gilhuys, deputy director at the county’s 911 Center, alleged that she received smaller raises than younger and male colleagues in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA). Both the circuit court and the newly created Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) rejected her claims. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, crystallising two critical principles:

• A WVHRA plaintiff who cannot identify similarly situated comparators or an actionable adverse employment action fails the prima facie threshold, even under the Act’s lenient “de minimis” burden at the summary-judgment stage.
• Pending discovery—such as an unresolved motion to reconvene a corporate-representative deposition—does not forestall summary judgment where no amount of additional information could cure those foundational defects.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying de novo review, the Supreme Court held that Ms Gilhuys’s evidence did not meet the first rung of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The Court accepted that she was a member of protected classes (age ≥ 40 and female) but found:

• No substantial evidence that she was similarly situated to the hourly dispatchers whose higher percentage raises she cited.
• No adverse employment action; she remained salaried, retained the same duties, and received regular raises.
• No causal inference (“but for” linkage) between her protected status and the raise differentials.

Consequently, Hardy County 911 Center’s articulated, non-discriminatory rationale—different pay structures for salaried versus hourly employees—stood unrebutted. The Court also rejected the argument that summary judgment was premature, emphasising that Rule 56 permits judgment “when no genuine issue of material fact exists,” regardless of outstanding discovery if that discovery would not affect dispositive issues. The ICA’s memorandum decision and the circuit court’s orders were affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Conaway v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. (1986) – Established the three-part prima facie test for WVHRA disparate-treatment claims.
  Influence: The Supreme Court found Ms Gilhuys failed steps two and three.
• Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home (1995) – Clarified that the “but-for” element requires only an inference of discrimination at the prima-facie stage.
  Influence: Even under this lenient standard, plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient.
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (U.S. 1973) – Adopted in West Virginia for WVHRA cases.
  Influence: Provided the burden-shifting sequence the lower courts applied.
• Hanlon v. Chambers (1995) – Endorsed cautious use of summary judgment in discrimination suits but allowed it when a plaintiff cannot pass the “de minimis” threshold.
  Influence: Guided the Court in holding that some discrimination cases can appropriately end on summary judgment.
• Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Properties (1996) & Drake v. Snider (2004) – Required a party seeking more discovery to identify how additional evidence would generate a material factual dispute.
  Influence: Undermined Ms Gilhuys’s “premature summary judgment” argument.
• Moorhead v. WV Army Nat’l Guard (2025) – Confirmed de novo appellate review of summary-judgment decisions.
  Influence: Set the review lens through which the Supreme Court analysed the record.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Prima Facie Failure
   The Court dissected the salary structure: salaried exempt manager versus hourly non-exempt dispatchers. Because these roles differed in responsibilities, schedule control, and FLSA status, dispatchers were not “similarly situated” comparators. Without a comparator, the raise differentials could not evidence discrimination.
2. No Adverse Action
   Raises—albeit smaller—were still raises. West Virginia precedent demands something “materially adverse” (e.g., demotion, pay cut, termination). Merely receiving a lower percentage increase was insufficient.
3. Independent “But-For” Causation
   The Court found no nexus between protected status and the salary decisions. Statements attributed to Director Lewis about male superiority were viewed as stray remarks, unconnected to pay-raise calculations approved by the County Commission.
4. Summary Judgment Despite Pending Discovery
   The outstanding deposition questions (e.g., Lewis’s personal religious views) would not create genuine disputes about comparator status or adverse action. Therefore, Rule 56(f) relief (continuance for discovery) was unwarranted.
5. Record Preservation
   The plaintiff failed to designate the discovery-order transcript in the appellate record. Both the ICA and Supreme Court declined review on that ground, reinforcing the procedural prerequisite of a complete appendix.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

The decision resonates beyond the immediate parties in several ways:

• Comparator Rigor – Plaintiffs must identify co-workers who share substantially similar roles. Merely showing salary differentials across exempt / non-exempt categories will not suffice.
• Discovery Timing – Trial courts may confidently grant summary judgment before discovery closes if the movant demonstrates fatal legal gaps that additional discovery cannot remedy.
• Record-Building Discipline – Appellants must include every order or exhibit they wish to challenge; otherwise, appellate courts will summarily refuse review.
• Mixed-Motive Claims – The opinion implicitly tightens pleadings: plaintiffs who invoke “mixed motive” must still satisfy basic Conaway elements.
• Intermediate Court Authority – The Supreme Court’s near-summary affirmance signals deference to the ICA’s analytical framework, forecasting a stable appellate hierarchy in West Virginia.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Prima Facie Case – The minimal showing a plaintiff must make to create an inference of discrimination. Think of it as passing through the courthouse door before the defendant must explain itself.
• Comparator – A co-worker alike in key respects (job duties, qualifications, work conditions). They act as the “control group” against which unfair treatment is measured.
• Adverse Employment Action – A significant change in employment status: firing, demotion, or a material loss of benefits. Small annoyances or perceived slights rarely qualify.
• Burden-Shifting (McDonnell Douglas) – A three-part evidentiary dance: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate reason; (3) plaintiff’s proof that the reason is pretextual.
• Rule 56 Summary Judgment – A procedure for disposing of cases without trial when no real facts are in dispute; the judge, not a jury, decides the legal outcome.
• Rule 56(f) Continuance (now 56(d) federally) – A device allowing the non-movant to seek extra discovery time, but only if she shows specific facts she expects to discover and how they will create a genuine dispute.

Conclusion

Gilhuys sets a clear cautionary marker for WVHRA litigants: a case falters when the plaintiff lacks genuine comparators and cannot show an adverse action—no amount of additional discovery or invocation of mixed motives will salvage it. The Supreme Court’s emphatic endorsement of summary judgment, even with unresolved discovery motions, underscores judicial economy and the importance of sharpened pleadings. For practitioners, the decision is a reminder to:

• Collect comparator evidence early and tie it tightly to the plaintiff’s job profile.
• Document adverse actions that move beyond minor pay differentials.
• Use Rule 56(f) with precision—identify exactly what discovery is missing and why it matters.
• Ensure the appellate record is complete; omissions can be fatal to review.

Ultimately, Gilhuys fortifies the West Virginia jurisprudence that, while discrimination suits often hinge on intent and credibility, courts are justified in granting summary judgment when plaintiffs cannot cross the low prima facie bar. The ruling therefore streamlines WVHRA litigation and signals to employers and employees alike that solid, role-based comparators and tangible adverse actions are the keystones of any successful discrimination claim.