No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Virginia appellate court affirmed dismissal of sexual abuse claim based on statute of limitations, rejecting arguments that the 2021 accrual statute should apply retroactively and that the plaintiff lacked awareness of injuries before reaching majority.
On appeal in a case alleging sexual abuse during the minority of a minor plaintiff, the arguments that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the General Assembly's intention to apply the 2021 accrual statute governing such claims retroactively, and the further claims that -- even if the Court of Appeals was correct with regard to the retroactive application of that accrual statute -- it erred in its determination that plaintiff was aware of her injuries and their causal connection to the alleged sexual abuse before she reached the age of majority, are rejected. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the Circuit Court sustaining a plea in bar based on the statute of limitations is affirmed.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
A group of employees filed an action against the Commonwealth and the Department of Corrections, seeking to recover for unpaid overtime under a statute enacted in 2021 providing a right for such recovery. When the General Assembly comprehensively overhauled the statute shortly after its enactment, however, it repealed the waiver of sovereign immunity. The present action was filed after the General Assembly repealed the original waiver of sovereign immunity. In response to the complaint, the Commonwealth filed a plea of sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the plea, and the Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal to this Court under Code §§ 8.01-626 and 8.01-670.2. The issue is treated as one implicating subject matter jurisdiction, and in the present appeal the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and final judgment is entered in favor of the Commonwealth.
The language of the Virginia wage theft statute, Code § 40.1-29, specifically lists wages and salaries, but it does not expressly apply to commissions, and its context does not support an interpretation that extends the statute's protections to commissions. Resting its contrary conclusion on the remedial purpose of the statute, past decisions interpreting the term "wages" in other contexts, and an interpretation by an administrative agency contained in a field manual, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Code § 40.1-29 did not apply to commissions. However, neither the plain meaning of the terms "wages" or "commissions," nor the use of the term wages in the context of Code § 40.1-29, suggests that the use of that term sweeps in the concept of "commissions," and contentions to the contrary, while compelling, are properly addressed to the legislature. Therefore, the most plausible reading of Code § 40.1-29 is that the General Assembly did not intend for the wage theft statute to apply to commissions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
In an interlocutory appeal brought by medical staffing companies concerning a physician-plaintiff's claim against them under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act, Code § 40.1-27.3, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of their plea in bar to that claim because the alleged retaliatory action taken against the plaintiff -- removing her from the work schedule in March of 2021 -- took place more than one year prior to her filing suit on April 1, 2022. The fact that she only later discovered her injury to be greater than she first realized as a result of a June 2, 2021, termination letter confirming that the termination of her employment was effective as of March 3, 2021, is immaterial to when she first sustained that injury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.