## Facts

- AJR, Inc. manufactured and welded truck beds; Danny L. Benson began working there as a welder in 1990 and became a supervisor in 1997 with primary responsibility for safety programs and rule enforcement.
- AJR was sold to employee John M. Rhodes, who entered into an employment agreement guaranteeing Benson eight years of employment beginning August 29, 1997.
- The agreement permitted termination on one day’s written notice, but required payment of Benson’s salary for the eight-year term unless termination resulted from: (a) dishonesty, (b) felony conviction, or (c) Benson’s voluntary termination.
- Shortly after signing the agreement, Benson acknowledged an employee manual listing grounds for termination, including sale, possession, or use of controlled substances while working or on company business, and he signed a consent to random drug testing.
- In March 1998 AJR conducted employee drug testing; before results returned, Rhodes asked employees in a meeting whether they knew of drug use at work, and Benson did not disclose any such information.
- Benson tested positive for cocaine; AJR terminated Benson and multiple other employees who also tested positive.
- Benson sued AJR and Rhodes for (1) breach of the employment contract (arguing the termination did not fall within “dishonesty”) and (2) false light invasion of privacy based on drug-test related documentation and disclosures.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to defendants on both claims, concluding the termination fell within the contract’s “dishonesty” exception and that the false light claim failed.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the breach of contract claim where the parties disputed whether Benson was terminated “for dishonesty” within the meaning of the employment agreement.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the false light invasion of privacy claim based on the employer’s handling and characterization of Benson’s positive drug test.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed summary judgment de novo and required evidence to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the contract claim because the record permitted competing inferences about the actual basis for termination and whether it fit the agreement’s “dishonesty” exception.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the false light claim because Benson failed to raise a triable issue on essential elements, including falsity and the required level of publicity.
- The case was remanded for trial on the contract claim; the judgment for defendants on the false light claim remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when the evidence allows reasonable competing inferences on a material fact; credibility and fact-finding belong to the jury.
- Where an employment agreement limits the employer’s ability to avoid continued pay to specified grounds (e.g., “dishonesty”), a court may not resolve disputed questions about the parties’ intended meaning and the termination’s actual basis as a matter of law when the record supports different interpretations.
- A false light invasion of privacy claim requires, at minimum, publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light and falsity (or an actionable misleading impression); accurate statements of unfavorable facts generally do not satisfy falsity.
- Absent evidence of the level of dissemination required for “publicity,” and absent evidence the challenged matter was false, a false light claim fails as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury must decide whether Benson’s termination was actually for “dishonesty” as contemplated by the employment agreement, but it rejected Benson’s false light theory because he failed to show false or sufficiently publicized statements regarding his drug test and termination.


Benson v. AJR, Inc., 215 W. Va. 324, 599 S.E.2d 747 (W. Va. 2004)