Whistleblower Cases

R.C. 124.341, civil servant, Greeley claim, R.C. 124.11, subject-matter jurisdiction, Civ.R. 12(B)(1), Civ.R. 12(B)6), Civ.R. 56(C), sex discrimination, public official intimidation, R.C. 4112.02, R.C. 2921.03(A)

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.

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025

Trial court erred sustaining demurrer against GMU on a ground not raised in demurrer, denying nonsuit, and dismissing claim; decision exceeded scope of demurrer, Code § 8.01-273(A); no final appealable order for any Fraud and Whistleblower subsections asserted against employees; reversed and remanded for further proceedings