Prop. Damage Specialists, Inc. v. Rechichar, 790 S.E.2d 237

Aaron Rechichar sued his employer, Property Damage Specialists, Inc. (PDS), for retaliatory discharge under Va. Code § 40.1-51.2:1 after he complained to OSHA about unsafe practices and was terminated.
Rechichar filed a private action under § 40.1-51.2:2(B) after the Commissioner declined to issue a charge.
He sought both compensatory and punitive damages; the circuit court allowed the jury to consider punitive damages.
The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages; the circuit court entered judgment including punitive damages.
PDS appealed, arguing § 40.1-51.2:2(B)’s grant of “appropriate relief” does not authorize punitive damages.
The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo and considered whether “appropriate relief” includes punitive damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “appropriate relief” in Va. Code § 40.1-51.2:2(B) authorizes punitive damages	Rechichar: § 40.1-51.2:2(B)’s open term “appropriate relief” permits punitive damages as part of remedies	PDS: The statute’s remedies are remedial and economic; punitive damages are punitive and not authorized	The Court held “appropriate relief” does not include punitive damages; punitive damages reversed

Wilson v. Whittaker, 207 Va. 1032, 154 S.E.2d 124 (1967) (statutory damages phrasing construed not to authorize punitive damages in wrongful-death context)
Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96, 639 S.E.2d 174 (2007) (standard for de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Miller v. SEVAMP, Inc., 234 Va. 462, 362 S.E.2d 915 (1987) (legislative purpose in creating retaliatory discharge statutory claims)
Banks v. Mario Indus. of Virginia, Inc., 274 Va. 438, 650 S.E.2d 687 (2007) (describing punitive damages’ purpose as punishment and deterrence)
Eberhardt v. Fairfax Cnty. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 283 Va. 190, 721 S.E.2d 524 (2012) (same statutory term in different subsections given same meaning)