796 S.E.2d 188
Va.2017Background
- Francis was hired at-will by NACCAS as an administrative assistant; a coworker, Blow, threatened her at work in January 2015 and about a dozen employees witnessed it.
- NACCAS managers met with the employees but did not investigate or discipline Blow; Francis expressed safety concerns in writing.
- Francis obtained an ex parte preliminary protective order (PPO) against Blow on January 30, 2015; the PPO was served at the NACCAS office on February 5.
- On February 9, NACCAS terminated Francis, stating she “did not fit the vision of the organization.”
- Francis sued in circuit court alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Bowman, asserting termination was motivated by her exercise of the Protective Order Statutes right to seek protection.
- The circuit court sustained NACCAS’s demurrer to the amended complaint with prejudice; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination after obtaining a protective order states a Bowman wrongful-discharge claim (Scenario 1) | Francis: obtaining a PPO is a statutorily created right; her termination was motivated by that exercise and thus violated the policy behind the Protective Order Statutes | NACCAS: Francis was at-will; she does not allege the termination itself violated the statute’s protective purpose or that NACCAS prevented exercise of the right | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to show termination violated the public policy; statutes protect health/safety but do not create a right that forbids termination for seeking a PPO |
| Whether termination fits Bowman Scenario 2 (statute expressly protects the discharged employee class) | Francis: the Protective Order Statutes explicitly state the public policy to protect petitioners’ health and safety; she is a member of that protected class | NACCAS: Even if Francis is in the protected class, she did not allege that termination violated the statutory policy to protect her health and safety | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff did not allege that termination itself contravened the statute’s protective policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534, 331 S.E.2d 797 (Va. 1985) (recognizing narrow public-policy exception to at-will doctrine where employer’s discharge frustrates a statutorily created right)
- Rowan v. Tractor Supply Co., 263 Va. 209, 559 S.E.2d 709 (Va. 2002) (articulating three Bowman scenarios where wrongful-discharge claims may proceed)
- Miller v. SEVAMP, Inc., 234 Va. 462, 362 S.E.2d 915 (Va. 1987) (explaining Bowman protects misuse of discharge to subvert statutory rights, not a general retaliatory-discharge tort)
- Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va. 188, 624 S.E.2d 24 (Va. 2006) (standards for appellate review of demurrer and limits on facts considered)
- Johnston v. William E. Wood & Assocs., 292 Va. 222, 787 S.E.2d 103 (Va. 2016) (reaffirming Virginia’s at-will employment principle)
- Brown v. Jacobs, 289 Va. 209, 768 S.E.2d 421 (Va. 2015) (demurrer is proper where pleading fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action)