Forest Lawton v. Volvo Group North America, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Volvo Group North America, LLC’s partial motion to dismiss Count X of Forest Lawton’s amended complaint. The court held that Virginia Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7), read as part of the Virginia Human Rights Act, protects an employee’s opposition to an employer’s failure to provide pregnancy-related accommodations to a coworker. The court concluded that Lawton could pursue his VHRA retaliation claim based on that opposition activity.

Holdings

1. Virginia Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7) protects an individual from employer discrimination because the individual opposed any practice made unlawful by the Virginia Human Rights Act, including a practice prohibited by Virginia Code § 2.2-3909. Thus, Lawton's opposition to Volvo's alleged failure to provide reasonable pregnancy-related accommodations was protected opposition activity.
2. Lawton's failure to cite Virginia Code § 2.2-3905 in the amended complaint was not fatal because he pleaded a VHRA retaliation claim based on opposition activity and did not seek to introduce new facts or a new claim in his opposition brief.
3. Lawton sufficiently alleged that he engaged in protected opposition activity and was retaliated against because of that activity, so his VHRA retaliation claim could proceed beyond the pleading stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Virginia Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7) protects an employee who opposes an allegedly unlawful denial of pregnancy-related accommodation to a coworker.
2. Whether Lawton could rely in his opposition brief on Virginia Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7) even though his amended complaint specifically cited Virginia Code § 2.2-3909.
3. Whether Count X stated a plausible Virginia Human Rights Act retaliation claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Disposition

other