McCarthy v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

999 F. Supp. 823 (E.D. Va. 1998) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division · April 7, 1998 · No. CIV.A. 97-1215-A

Summary

The court granted Texas Instruments' motion for summary judgment in a sex discrimination and retaliation action brought under federal and Virginia law. The opinion focuses on whether Virginia's decision in Doss v. Jamco, Inc. eliminated common-law wrongful termination claims based on public policies reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act. The court held that such a Bowman claim was unavailable for sex discrimination because the relevant public policy was reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act, and dismissed the claim.

Holdings

  1. After Doss and the 1995 Lockhart amendments, a plaintiff may not bring a Virginia common-law Bowman wrongful-termination claim based on any public policy reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act, even if the same policy is also expressed in another statute or in the Virginia Constitution.
  2. Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment cannot supply the required expression of Virginia public policy for a Bowman claim; a county ordinance is not a state statute; and the Virginia Constitution cannot support the claim when the asserted sex-discrimination policy is also reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act.
  3. Summary judgment for Texas Instruments was proper because, even viewing the evidence in McCarthy's favor, no reasonable jury could find for her on the federal claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Virginia's 1995 amendments to the Virginia Human Rights Act, as interpreted by Doss v. Jamco, Inc., preclude a common-law Bowman wrongful-termination claim based on a public policy against sex discrimination when that policy is reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act.
  2. Whether a Bowman claim may be based on Title VII, the Fourteenth Amendment, a Fairfax County human-rights ordinance, or the Virginia Constitution when the asserted antidiscrimination policy is also reflected in the Virginia Human Rights Act.
  3. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the federal sex-discrimination, sexual-harassment, retaliation, and related claims.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Doss v. Jamco, Inc., 492 S.E.2d 441 (Va. 1997)(followed)
  • Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534, 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985)(followed)
  • Lockhart v. Commonwealth Educ. Sys. Corp., 247 Va. 98, 439 S.E.2d 328 (1994)(limited)
  • Lawrence Chrysler Plymouth Corp. v. Brooks, 251 Va. 94, 465 S.E.2d 806 (1996)(followed)
  • Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 106 Va. 223, 55 S.E. 551 (1906)(followed)
  • Miller v. SEVAMP, Inc., 234 Va. 462, 362 S.E.2d 915 (1987)(followed)
  • Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 486 S.E.2d 545 (Va. 1997)(overruled_authority)
  • Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)(followed)
  • Spencer v. General Elec. Co., 894 F.2d 651 (4th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…