Adkins v. Holt — West Virginia unemployment ruling for claimant affirmed

Case
Scott A. Adkins, in his Official Capacity as Acting Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia v. Sarah K. Holt and Project Healing Waters Fly Fishing, Inc.
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge
Daniel W. Greear (Jim Justice, 2021); Charles O. Lorensen (Jim Justice, 2022)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
25-ICA-343
Topics
Unemployment benefits, charitable employers, statutory interpretation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Sarah K. Holt worked remotely from Parkersburg, West Virginia, as a developmental director for Project Healing Waters Fly Fishing, Inc. from 2021 until her February 2025 layoff for lack of work. She sought unemployment compensation benefits after the layoff.

A WorkForce West Virginia claims deputy found Holt monetarily ineligible because Project Healing Waters was not considered a liable West Virginia employer. WorkForce concluded that, as a charitable organization, the employer needed at least four employees in West Virginia; it had only two. Holt appealed, testifying without objection that Project Healing Waters employed sixteen full-time employees nationwide. The ALJ reversed the deputy, and the Board of Review affirmed.

The Court’s Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. West Virginia Code § 21A-1A-16(10)(B) requires a charitable organization to have four or more individuals in employment during the specified weeks, but its plain text does not require those employees to be located or reside in West Virginia.

The court declined to add a geographic limitation the Legislature did not include, noting that other subsections of the statute expressly contain West Virginia location requirements. It also held that the ALJ could rely on Holt’s unrefuted testimony about the employer’s nationwide workforce; WorkForce did not show that the resulting factual finding was clearly wrong.

Key Takeaways

  • Section 21A-1A-16(10)(B) does not require a charitable employer’s four qualifying employees to be in West Virginia.
  • Express geographic restrictions elsewhere in the statute supported the conclusion that none should be read into subsection (10)(B).
  • Unrefuted claimant testimony may support an ALJ’s factual finding in an unemployment-benefits proceeding.

Why It Matters

The decision rejects WorkForce’s interpretation that nonprofit liability for West Virginia unemployment purposes turns on having four employees physically in the state. A charitable organization with qualifying employees nationwide may therefore satisfy the relevant employment definition, even if it has fewer than four West Virginia employees.

For claimants, the case also underscores the importance of presenting evidence on eligibility at the administrative hearing, where unchallenged testimony can sustain agency findings on review.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top