Skip to main content

Doe v. Green

Va.November 26, 2025No. 240794
Defendant WinGreen
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal - Court of Appeals decision affirmed

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

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.

Excerpt

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.

What This Ruling Means

**Virginia Court Rules Against Worker in Sexual Abuse Case Due to Time Limits** This case involved a worker who sued her employer, Green, claiming she was sexually abused as a minor while working there. The worker argued that a 2021 Virginia law that gave abuse victims more time to file lawsuits should apply to her case, even though the abuse happened before that law was passed. The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled against the worker and dismissed her case. The court decided that the 2021 law giving victims more time to sue could not be applied backward to older cases. The court also rejected the worker's argument that she didn't understand her injuries or their connection to the abuse until she became an adult. As a result, the worker's lawsuit was thrown out because too much time had passed under the old time limit rules. This ruling matters for workers because it shows how strict time limits for filing lawsuits can prevent victims from getting justice, even when new laws are designed to help them. Workers who experience abuse should seek legal help immediately to understand their rights and any deadlines that apply to their situation.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Campbell
Va.Dec 2025

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.

Defendant Win
Ingleside
Va.Dec 2025

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.

Remanded
Vlaming v. West Point School Board
Va.Dec 2023
Remanded
Jeffreys
Va.Feb 2019
Defendant Win
Government Employees v. UNITED SERVICES
Va.Apr 2011
Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.