Hale v. Town of Warrenton (ORDER)
798 S.E.2d 595
| Va. | 2017Background
- In April 2006 the Town of Warrenton (through its Director of Planning, Charles Mothersead) hired Robert F. Hale, Jr. as the Town’s sole, full‑time Building Official; Hale initially served on a six‑month probationary status.
- Hale later alleged that after conflicts with influential town figures he was removed in November 2012 from his supervisory role in the Building Department, while his pay grade, job title, and other duties remained the same; by June 2013 the Town appointed another Building Official.
- Hale filed an internal grievance challenging his removal; the Town deemed the matter non‑grievable and Hale appealed to the circuit court, where facts were elicited that Mothersead had hired Hale as a full‑time (not interim) executive Building Official and that hiring authority had been exercised on the Town Manager’s behalf.
- In 2015 Hale sued seeking mandamus to be reappointed as the executive Building Official, alleging he had been permanently appointed under 13 VAC § 5‑63‑50(A) (the Uniform Statewide Building Code provision governing permanent appointment and removal for cause).
- The Town demurred, arguing Hale failed to allege facts showing a permanent appointment; the circuit court granted the motion craving oyer and sustained the demurrer, dismissing Hale’s complaint with prejudice.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding Hale’s pleaded facts (and reasonable inferences) were sufficient to permit a factfinder to decide whether his appointment became permanent after the probationary period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hale pleaded sufficient facts to show a permanent appointment as Building Official under the Uniform Statewide Building Code | Hale: hired as sole, full‑time, executive Building Official; probation expired after six months; therefore a reasonable inference of permanent appointment exists | Town: Hale was at‑will/interim; complaint does not allege a "permanent appointment" necessary to invoke statutory removal‑for‑cause protections | Court: Reversed circuit court — pleadings (and facts from craving oyer) permit reasonable inference of permanent appointment; demurrer should not have been sustained |
| Whether mandamus remedy can be determined on demurrer | Hale: seeks mandamus to be reappointed if permanently appointed | Town: factual issues preclude mandamus determination | Court: Remanded — declined to decide mandamus appropriateness; that depends on factual findings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Coutlakis v. CSX Transp., Inc., 293 Va. 212 (reciting demurrer review standard and treating pleadings in light most favorable to plaintiff)
- EMAC, L.L.C. v. County of Hanover, 291 Va. 13 (documents produced by motion craving oyer are incorporated into pleadings for demurrer analysis)
- Dye v. CNX Gas Co., 291 Va. 319 (purpose of demurrer is to test whether complaint states a cause of action)
- Assurance Data, Inc. v. Malyevac, 286 Va. 137 (complaint must allege sufficient material facts to inform defendant of nature of claim)
- CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 (pleading standards for alleging facts vs. conclusions)
- Brown v. Jacobs, 289 Va. 209 (court not bound by conclusory legal allegations on demurrer)
- Evans v. Evans, 280 Va. 76 (de novo review of legal sufficiency of pleadings on demurrer)