Derrick Brown v. Ben Copeland

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia considers whether Virginia’s Fraud and Abuse Whistle-Blower Protection Act authorizes an individual-capacity claim against a supervisory employee. The court concludes that the statute’s remedies, including reinstatement and back pay, support only official-capacity claims against supervisors and dismisses the claim against the defendant in his individual capacity. The court also notes additional deficiencies in the plaintiff’s allegations concerning protected activity and causation.

Holdings

1. The FAWPA's limited statutory remedies—reinstatement, back pay, and reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights—are available only against a supervisor sued in an official capacity, not against a supervisor sued in an individual capacity.
2. The argument that Copeland could not provide the requested relief is properly analyzed as a question of statutory construction concerning whether the FAWPA permits relief against supervisors in their individual capacities, rather than as an Article III standing issue.
3. Brown's alleged statement that minority students needed protection, standing alone, was an opinion rather than a report of a legal violation and therefore was not protected activity under the FAWPA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the FAWPA authorizes a state or local employee to sue a supervisor in the supervisor's individual capacity.
2. Whether Copeland's motion to dismiss the FAWPA claim should be treated as a statutory-construction issue rather than an Article III standing issue.
3. Whether the complaint separately alleged protected activity under the FAWPA by asserting that Brown expressed an opinion about protecting minority students.

Disposition

dismissed