West Virginia recording consent law for interviews: one-party, and the candidate's identity is protected too

West Virginia is a one-party consent state. Under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e), it is lawful for a person to intercept a call or conversation "where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. An interviewer in Charleston, Huntington or Morgantown may record or transcribe their own interview under state law. What sets West Virginia apart is how far its disclosure rule reaches: the statute protects not only what was said on an unlawfully intercepted call, but "the identity of any party thereto."

For any specific call, start with the consent checker.

The Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act

Article 1D of chapter 62 makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept "any wire, oral or electronic communication," and to disclose or use the contents of one while knowing or having reason to know it came from an interception that violates the article. Subsection (e) is the participant exception:

"It is lawful under this article for a person to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state."

The definitions in § 62-1D-2 follow the federal model. "Intercept" is "the aural or other acquisition of the contents" of a communication through a device, which covers a transcription tool as much as an audio recorder. An "oral communication" is one uttered with a justified expectation that it will not be intercepted. West Virginia's list of excluded devices also names "any device used in a lawful consensual monitoring including, but not limited to, tape recorders." The legislature, in other words, wrote consensual recording into the definitions as something ordinary.

The identity rule

Most state wiretap laws punish disclosing the contents of an unlawful interception. West Virginia's § 62-1D-3(a)(3) goes further. It is unlawful to:

"Intentionally use or disclose or intentionally attempt to use or disclose the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication or the identity of any party thereto, knowing or having reason to know that such information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this article."

The civil section matches it: the claim belongs to a person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed or used, "or whose identity is disclosed," in violation of the article. For recruiters, candidate identity is often the most sensitive fact of all. A candidate who is quietly looking while employed elsewhere may care more about their name leaving the room than about what they said. If a recording was made unlawfully, passing on who was on it is separately actionable, so a recording that should not exist is not made safe by sharing only a summary with the candidate's name attached.

Arranging a recording you are not part of

Section 62-1D-3(a)(1) does not stop at the person who presses record. It is equally unlawful to "procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept" a communication, and the civil section reaches anyone who "procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use" one. That language matters in two common hiring setups:

• A coordinator who sets up recording for someone else's interview. If no participant has agreed in advance, the coordinator is not a party and has no consent to rely on, and arranging it is itself within the statute.
• A note-taking service sent to a call on someone's behalf. When a recruiter dispatches a service to a call the recruiter does not attend, the service is not a party, and the recruiter's own consent is not a participant's consent.

In both cases the fix is the same: the person who will actually be on the call agrees beforehand, and the candidate is told at the start. The participant exception in subsection (e) protects people who are parties or who have a party's prior consent. It does not protect an arrangement that leaves both out.

Penalties and the civil claim

The state civil remedy has a daily floor but no flat minimum, which makes the federal statutory alternative the bigger number in most single-call cases.

Phone, video and in-person interviews

Five neighbors, two of them all-party

West Virginia's shape puts much of its population near a state line, and the line that matters most depends on the region.

• Northern Panhandle and Morgantown. Wheeling sits between Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Morgantown is a short drive from the Pittsburgh area. Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties and is one of the stricter states in the country; see Pennsylvania wiretap law for interviews.
• Eastern Panhandle. Martinsburg and Charles Town are part of the Washington, D.C. and Hagerstown commuting areas. Maryland's Wiretap Act requires every party's prior consent; see Maryland recording consent law for interviews.
• The Ohio River. Parkersburg faces Belpre and Marietta, and Huntington's metro area reaches into Ohio and Kentucky. Both are one-party states, as is Virginia to the south and east. The Ohio rule is covered in Ohio recording consent law for interviews.

So a Huntington call with a candidate in Ashland, Kentucky raises no conflict, while a Morgantown call with a candidate in Washington County, Pennsylvania does. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) matches West Virginia's rule but does not prevent Pennsylvania or Maryland from applying their own. How courts sort out those conflicts is in recording calls across state lines.

Practical points for West Virginia hiring teams

1. Know which panhandle you are in. Teams in the north and east should default to consent on every call; their candidate pool is heavily Pennsylvanian and Marylander.
2. Protect names as well as words. The identity rule is a good reason to keep recordings and transcripts in one access-controlled place and out of shared inboxes.
3. Transcripts count. "Aural or other acquisition" covers text; setup choices are in how to record a phone screen.
4. Keep purpose tied to the hire. The exception falls away if the purpose is criminal or tortious.
5. Review AI scoring separately using AI hiring laws by state.

A consent line for West Virginia interviews

"Before the first question: I'd like to [record / transcribe] today's
conversation so I don't miss anything you tell me. It's kept with the
hiring team for this position, your name and the recording don't go
anywhere else, and it's deleted after [period]. Are you comfortable
with that? If not, no problem at all; I'll write notes."

[Record only after a clear yes.]

Mentioning that the candidate's name stays inside the team speaks directly to West Virginia's identity rule, and the request covers a candidate across the line in Pennsylvania or Maryland. Longer and written versions are in the interview recording consent script.