Richard Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
776 F.3d 214
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Weidman, a Virginia resident, sued ExxonMobil and ten employees in Fairfax County Circuit Court for retaliation and various torts after his 2013 termination.
- He alleged illegal pharmacy practices and retaliation, leading to a heart attack and emotional distress.
- ExxonMobil removed the case to the Eastern District of Virginia and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Weidman moved to remand; the district court denied remand and dismissed most tort claims.
- The district court allowed a wrongful discharge claim only under Virginia public policy and implied unilateral contract theories; it dismissed other tort claims.
- Weidman appeals the remand denial and tort dismissals, challenging the public policy theory and the VWCA linkage as to wrongful discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand viability on fraudulent joinder | Weidman argues non-diverse defendants defeat diversity. | ExxonMobil shows no possibility of tort claims against non-diverse defendants. | No remand; fraudulent joinder shown for non-diverse defendants. |
| Fraud claim sufficiency | Weidman pled misrepresentation by Tillerson and HR; relied on representations. | Insufficient specificity; no times or who made the misrepresentation. | Fraud claim dismissed for lack of particularity. |
| IIED claim sufficiency | Weidman alleges outrageous conduct (humiliation, insults) causing distress. | Conduct not sufficiently outrageous to meet standard. | IIED claim dismissed; not outrageous enough. |
| Personal injury claim viability | Heart attack constitutes recoverable personal injury from defendants’ actions. | VWCA exclusive remedy; improper pleadings. | Personal injury claim dismissed as improperly pleaded. |
| Wrongful discharge public policy and contract theory | Termination violated Virginia public policy and implied contract from handbook. | At-will employment; no protected public policy breach; no clear unilateral contract. | Weidman stated a viable public-policy wrongful discharge claim against ExxonMobil; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 1999) (fraudulent joinder framework for diversity jurisdiction)
- Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 1993) (no requirement to plead ultimate success; only possibility of relief)
- VanBuren v. Grubb, 733 S.E.2d 919 (Va. 2012) (Va. public policy wrongful discharge theory)
- Morris v. Morris, 385 S.E.2d 858 (Va. 1989) (public policy exceptions to at-will employment)
- Womack v. Eldridge, 210 S.E.2d 145 (Va. 1974) (outrageous conduct component for IIED)
- Jensen v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 454 F.3d 382 (4th Cir. 2006) (handbook implied unilateral contract—contextual discussion)
- Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992) (remand/removal context; standard for review on record)