McClure Management, LLC v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2020 · Property

849 S.E.2d 604 (W. Va. 2020)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyPublic accommodations discriminationWest Virginia Human Rights ActWVHRApublic accommodationsrace discriminationRule 50(b)judgment as a matter of law

Facts

Two African American pipeline workers came to Wheeling for work and sought long-term apartment rooms at the McClure Hotel. They were told no such rooms were available and that they were on a "waiting list," but they testified that white coworkers who were hired later and arrived later received long-term apartment rooms before they did; the hotel manager also told one respondent there was no waiting list. Petitioner Adams later called one respondent's employer about a late fee, though she did not do so for a white coworker who had also been late, and both respondents testified that Adams made disparaging comments such as referring to "you people." The respondents eventually received long-term apartment rooms only after complaining to the hotel's general manager.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the hotel violated the West Virginia Human Rights Act by withholding or denying accommodations because of race, despite initially providing the respondents with different rooms and later giving them the requested apartments. The court also considered whether allowing a rebuttal witness and leaving the damages verdict intact was error.

Rule

To make a prima facie case of discrimination in a place of public accommodation, a complainant must prove: (a) membership in a protected class; (b) an attempt to avail himself of the accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services of a place of public accommodation; and (c) that those accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services were withheld, denied, or refused. Under the WVHRA, discrimination is not limited to complete denial of all accommodations; withholding a particular accommodation because of race is enough, and rude or intimidating conduct, while insufficient alone, may be considered as a factor in determining whether discrimination occurred.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nia Brooks, a Black consultant working in Charleston, West Virginia, asked the Harbor Crest Lodge for one of its quiet courtyard suites for a month-long stay. The front desk placed her in a standard highway-facing room, saying no courtyard suites were open, but two white consultants who booked later were given courtyard suites before Nia was moved after she complained to the general manager.

Under the majority's rule, which is the strongest argument that Nia has established a prima facie public-accommodations discrimination claim?

Explanation. The governing rule requires proof that the plaintiff is in a protected class, sought the accommodations of a place of public accommodation, and that those accommodations were withheld, denied, or refused. The majority specifically rejected the argument that a claim fails whenever some lesser accommodation was provided. Withholding a particular requested accommodation because of race is enough, even if the plaintiff received some other room.