## Facts

- Erik Taylor and James Turner were Black professionals working in the oil-and-gas industry who traveled to Wheeling, West Virginia, to work on a pipeline project for their employer.
- They sought long-term, “apartment-style” rooms at the McClure Hotel, which was owned and operated by McClure Management, LLC.
- Cindy Kay Adams, a hotel employee, handled room assignments and communications with guests about availability and pricing.
- Taylor testified that he called the hotel ahead of time and asked about long-term apartment rooms; he said Adams told him such rooms were available.
- Taylor testified that when he arrived, Adams told him there was a “waiting list” for the apartment-style rooms, and that he would have to stay at a higher nightly rate instead.
- Taylor further testified that White coworkers from the same company—some hired after Taylor—received apartment-style rooms, with the hotel attributing the different treatment to the supposed waiting list.
- Turner testified to similar treatment when he attempted to obtain long-term accommodations at the hotel.
- Taylor also testified that Adams made racially charged remarks, including a statement along the lines of: “I’ve had nothing but problems from you people,” which he understood as referencing race.
- Taylor testified that Adams contacted his employer to complain about Taylor and to report alleged unpaid fees, which Taylor viewed as part of the discriminatory conduct.
- At trial, Adams admitted that no waiting list for the apartment-style rooms actually existed.
- Taylor and Turner sued McClure Management, LLC and Adams under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), alleging unlawful race discrimination by a place of public accommodation.
- After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, the jury found for Taylor and Turner and awarded each plaintiff $475,000 in compensatory damages.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence of discrimination, error in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify about Adams’s comments, and that the verdict was excessive.
- The circuit court denied the post-trial motion, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendants refused, withheld, or denied hotel accommodations because of race, in violation of WVHRA § 5-11-9(6)(A).
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing a rebuttal witness to testify to contradict Adams’s trial testimony concerning remarks she allegedly made.
3. Whether the compensatory damages awards of $475,000 to each plaintiff were excessive and warranted a new trial or other relief.

## Decision

- Affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial.
- Held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could find unlawful race discrimination in a place of public accommodation under the WVHRA.
- Held that permitting rebuttal testimony to contradict Adams’s testimony about prior comments was within the circuit court’s evidentiary discretion.
- Held that the compensatory awards were supported by the trial record (including evidence of humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of dignity) and did not show passion, prejudice, or other improper motive.

## Legal Principles

- WVHRA § 5-11-9(6)(A) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for a place of public accommodation to refuse, withhold from, or deny to any individual the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services of the establishment because of race.
- Review of an order granting or denying a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) is de novo; after a jury verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and credibility determinations remain for the jury.
- A plaintiff may prove discriminatory denial or withholding of public accommodations through circumstantial evidence, including disparate treatment compared with similarly situated White customers and proof that the stated reason for denial was pretextual.
- Trial courts have wide discretion over the admission and scope of rebuttal evidence offered to contradict or impeach a witness’s testimony; reversal requires an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.
- In WVHRA cases, compensatory damages for emotional distress may be supported by testimony describing humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of dignity; appellate courts will not disturb a jury’s award unless it is plainly excessive or indicates improper influences such as passion or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a jury verdict finding that the McClure Hotel and its employee violated the WVHRA by withholding long-term apartment-style accommodations from two Black guests based on race, and it upheld the trial court’s rulings on rebuttal testimony and the $475,000 compensatory awards to each plaintiff as supported by the evidence and free of reversible error.


McClure Management, LLC v. Taylor, 849 S.E.2d 604 (2020)