Gary Slayter

 

This investigative report examines the professional history and legal record of **Gary W. Slater**, the former Director of West Virginia’s **Commission on Special Investigations**, who retired in **2014**. The document resolves a perceived contradiction between his **Supreme Court victories** regarding state personnel matters and recent evidence of **financial settlements**. It clarifies that these outcomes belong to two different periods: his **public service tenure**, where he enjoyed administrative immunity, and his **post-retirement private sector role** at Gestamp, where he faced civil liability. Furthermore, the report distinguishes Slater’s record from unrelated **Greenbrier County settlements**, such as civil rights payouts and environmental litigation. By analyzing these **distinct legal epochs**, the text provides a comprehensive verification of Slater's transition from a high-ranking official to a private citizen involved in **employment law disputes**.

The distinction between Gary Slater’s Supreme Court victories and his later private litigation is defined by a shift in his legal capacity, the governing laws, and the level of immunity he afforded as a public official versus a private citizen. According to the sources, these two periods are categorized as the Public Service Epoch (1989–2014) and the Private Sector Epoch (Post-2014).

The following factors distinguish these legal outcomes:

1. Legal Capacity and Authority

• Supreme Court Victories: During his 25-year tenure as the Director of the West Virginia Legislature’s Commission on Special Investigations (CSI), Slater acted as a state official wielding sovereign power. His victories, such as Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Myers (2008), involved the state's highest court validating his administrative and investigative authority to build evidentiary records for personnel sanctions, such as disbarment.
• Private Litigation: Following his retirement on June 30, 2014, Slater transitioned to the private sector as a "Group Leader" (manager) at the Gestamp manufacturing plant. In the case of Roberts v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC (2022), he was acting as a private employer representative, not a state-sanctioned investigator.

2. Immunity and Judicial Deference

• Public Service: As a public official, Slater benefited from qualified and sovereign immunity. The courts generally granted broad deference to the CSI, affirming its investigative tools (like subpoena power) in landmark cases such as the Hoover litigation.
• Private Sector: Private managers do not enjoy sovereign immunity. In his private litigation, Slater was subject to strict liability under federal statutes like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The sources note that this lack of immunity stripped him of his legal advantage, leading to the reversal of his initial summary judgment victory.

3. Nature of the Legal Claims

• Administrative/Investigative Law: His Supreme Court victories were rooted in public administrative law, focusing on the state's right to investigate malfeasance and the legal validity of those investigations to influence personnel decisions.
• Employment/Civil Liability: His later litigation involved private employment law. Specifically, the Roberts case turned on a personnel decision involving "job abandonment" where a manager's history of accepting Facebook messages for attendance was found by the Fourth Circuit to potentially override strict company call-in policies.

4. Judicial Venue and Finality

• Supreme Court Victories: These cases were finalized in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, resulting in binding law that upheld his administrative actions.
• Private Litigation Reversal: The "new evidence" of a financial resolution for Slater stems from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which vacated a lower court's ruling in his favor. This reversal typically precipitates a financial settlement to avoid a jury trial, contrasting with the definitive "death penalty" administrative sanctions (like license annulment) he secured while in public service.

The sources conclude that this "victory vs. settlement" dynamic is not a contradiction of his public record but rather a result of moving from a protective sphere of state administration to a liability-prone sphere of private management.

 

Gary Slater’s role as a private manager at the Gestamp manufacturing plant was the direct catalyst for the Roberts settlement, primarily because his informal management practices created a civil liability risk that did not exist during his public service career.

According to the sources, the following aspects of his management role impacted the legal outcome:

1. Establishment of "Usual and Customary" Procedures

In his capacity as a "Group Leader" (manager) at Gestamp, Slater had a history of accepting Facebook messages from employees for work-related communication and attendance. When an employee, Kasey Roberts, used Facebook Messenger to notify Slater of a medical emergency, the company later terminated Roberts for "job abandonment" because he failed to use the official company call-in line. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Slater’s personal history of accepting such messages could lead a jury to conclude that this had become a "usual and customary" notice procedure. This finding effectively overrode the strict call-in requirements in the employee handbook.

2. Loss of Sovereign and Qualified Immunity

Unlike his tenure as a state official, where he was protected by sovereign and qualified immunity, Slater acted as a private employer representative in the Roberts case. The sources state that private managers are subject to strict liability under federal statutes like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Because he lacked the "protective sphere" of state administration, his management decisions were fully exposed to civil litigation.

3. Reversal of Legal Fortune

Initially, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Slater's employer, upholding the personnel decision. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated this judgment based on the evidence of Slater’s informal communication practices. The sources explain that this appellate reversal precipitated a financial settlement because the vacating of the judgment stripped the defense of its legal advantage and forced the case toward an unpredictable jury trial.

4. Shift from Policy to Payout

The impact of Slater's role represents a shift from his public record of "wins on policy" to a "private financial resolution". While his public service victories (such as those involving the CSI) resulted in binding law and administrative sanctions, his private management style led to a "secondary agreement" or financial payout to resolve the litigation. The sources conclude that the "victory vs. settlement" dynamic in Slater's career is a direct result of transitioning to the liability-prone sphere of private management.

 

The final outcome of the Fourth Circuit reversal in the case of Roberts v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC was the vacating of a previous summary judgment and the subsequent remand of the case for trial, which ultimately precipitated a financial settlement.

The following details clarify the resolution of this reversal:

1. Remand and Loss of Immunity

On August 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court's ruling that had originally favored Slater and his employer. This decision stripped Slater of his legal advantage and remanded the case back to the District Court for a jury trial. The court determined that a jury could find Slater’s history of accepting Facebook messages for work notifications had established a "usual and customary" procedure that overrode the company's formal policy.

2. Private Financial Settlement

The sources explain that a remand from an appellate court in FMLA litigation of this nature "almost invariably precipitates a financial settlement to avoid the unpredictability of a jury verdict". This created the "victory vs. settlement" dynamic where a public win on policy (the initial summary judgment) was replaced by a private financial resolution.

3. Verification of Finality

To confirm the finality of this resolution, the sources suggest that a "Stipulation of Dismissal" would have been filed in the federal archives for case number 2:20-cv-00554 post-August 2022. This document would serve as the official confirmation of the settlement payout.

In contrast to the definitive administrative sanctions (such as license annulments) Slater secured during his public service, this reversal shifted his legal record from "wins on policy" to a "secondary agreement" or payout.