Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell and
Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice
ANDREW BRADICK
OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.
v. Record No. 962531 JUNE 6, 1997
GRUMMAN DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION
and NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
UPON A QUESTION OF LAW CERTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
By order entered on January 15, 1997, this Court accepted
the certification, by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, of the following question of Virginia law:
Does the common law of Virginia provide a wrongful
discharge remedy to an employee of an employer covered
by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et
seq., where the employee is discharged on account of
his disability or the employer's perception of his
disability?
Background
The question arises from a civil action brought by Andrew
Bradick against his former employer, Grumman Data Systems
Corporation (Grumman Data), in which Bradick alleges that the
employer wrongfully discharged him from employment on account of
1
disability in violation of the common law of Virginia.
The relevant facts are not in dispute and are contained
within the order of certification. Bradick was an employee-at-
will of Grumman Data in Virginia from October 15, 1990 until he
1
Bradick's suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court of
Fairfax County and subsequently removed by the defendants to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. Northrop Grumman Corporation, an initial defendant,
was dismissed by stipulation of the parties. Following an
adverse decision in the district court, Bradick has appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
was discharged on May 26, 1994. Bradick's job performance was
satisfactory to his employer. However, while on vacation in
Mexico in 1993, Bradick contracted a severe case of
histoplasmosis. 2 Because the disease caused Bradick to have
recurrent attacks of extreme fatigue, Bradick's physician
recommended that he take a leave of absence from his employment
with Grumman Data on three occasions. Bradick's discharge
occurred following the third of these leaves.
Bradick asserts in his pleading that he was and is able to
adequately perform the duties of his former job. Therefore, he
asserts that his discharge was in violation of public policy
because it was based on his physical disability or Grumman Data's
perception that he suffers from a physical disability.
Beginning with Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va.
534, 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985), we have recognized a narrow public
policy exception to this Commonwealth's employment-at-will
doctrine, which ordinarily permits either the employer or the
employee to terminate the employment relationship without
incurring liability. We have explained that this exception
applies to discharges which violate public policy. See Lawrence
Chrysler Plymouth Corp. v. Brooks, 251 Va. 94, 98-99, 465 S.E.2d
806, 809 (1996). We also have explained that the cause of action
arises not from the statute or statutes which express the public
policy relied on by the employee, but from the narrow exception
within the common law recognized in Bowman. See Bailey v. Scott-
2
Histoplasmosis is a fungal infection of the lungs.
Gallaher, 253 Va. 121, 125, 480 S.E.2d 502, 504 (1997); Lockhart
v. Commonwealth Educ. Systems Corp., 247 Va. 98, 105, 439 S.E.2d
328, 331 (1994). Upon these principles, we have permitted former
at-will employees to maintain common law actions for wrongful
discharge under the narrow exception recognized in Bowman where
the conduct alleged would have violated Virginia's public policy
against race and gender discrimination as reflected in the
Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), Code § 2.1-715. See Bailey,
supra (gender); Lockhart, supra (race and gender).
We have never before considered whether the narrow exception
recognized in Bowman permits a cause of action for unlawful
discharge from at-will employment based upon a disability.
However, it is not disputed that both the VHRA and the Virginians
with Disabilities Act (VDA), Code §§ 51.5-1 to 51.5-52, contain
clear expressions of Virginia's public policy opposing
discrimination against disabled persons.
In the present case, unlike Lockhart and Bailey, in order to
determine the applicability of the exception recognized in
Bowman, we must determine whether the common law cause of action
has been abrogated by the General Assembly when it enacted the
VDA. The VDA creates a comprehensive administrative procedure to
combat discrimination on account of disability in employment,
education, commerce, and civic affairs. Code § 51.5-41, which
contains the Act's prohibitions against employment
discrimination, specifically provides in subsection (F) that
"[t]his section shall not apply to employers covered by the
federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973." 3 Code § 51.5-46 provides
for the relief available for violation of the substantive
provisions of the VDA, and subsection (C) specifically provides
that "[t]he relief available for violations of this chapter shall
be limited to the relief set forth in this section."
Grumman Data is subject to the federal Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and, thus, is exempt from the employment discrimination
provisions of the VDA. The issue presented in this case, then,
is whether the exclusivity provision of Code § 51.5-46(C)
abrogates any action employees like Bradick might have under
Virginia common law for wrongful discharge from at-will
employment based on disability. We hold that it does not.
While it is true that the VDA and the federal Rehabilitative
Act of 1973 have similar purposes, nothing in the VDA expressly
makes either the federal Act part of the VDA's statutory scheme
or the provisions of the one applicable to the other. The
exemption provision of Code § 51.5-41(F) applies "to employers
covered by the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973." (Emphasis
added.) Nothing in this language expressly addresses or
otherwise implicates the claims an employee in this situation
might have under the federal or state Acts. Rather, this code
section expressly exempts certain employers from the application
of one section of the VDA. The VDA was enacted in derogation of
the common law and, therefore, it must be strictly applied and
3
The federal statute addresses, inter alia, employment
discrimination against persons with disabilities by employers
with federal contracts.
not "enlarged in [its] operation by construction beyond [its]
express terms." See C. & O. Railway v. Kinzer, 206 Va. 175, 181,
142 S.E.2d 514, 518; see also Baumgardner v. Southwestern
Virginia Mental Health Inst., 247 Va. 486, 489, 442 S.E.2d 400,
401 (1994).
The exclusivity provision of Code § 51.5-46(C) applies to
"violations of this chapter." Because employers, such as Grumman
Data in this case, who are covered by the federal Rehabilitative
Act of 1973 are not subject to the employment discrimination
provisions of the VDA, pursuant to Code § 51.5-41(F), actions by
such employers which constitute disability discrimination in
employment are not "violations of this chapter." Thus, it is
clear that Code § 51.5-46(C) limits only the relief for claims
that are brought under the substantive provisions of the VDA, and
has no application to a claim which might be brought against an
employer subject to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Moreover, a statute which does not apply to acts of an employer,
and provides no remedy to an employee if those acts violate
public policy, cannot be said to be a statutory abrogation of an
employee's common law cause of action based on those acts.
For these reasons, we hold that, based on the public policy
expressed in the VDA and VHRA at the time of Grumman Data's
alleged act of discrimination, the common law of Virginia
provides a wrongful discharge remedy to an employee, such as
Bradick, of an employer covered by the federal Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 where the employee is discharged on account of his
disability or the employer's perception of his disability under
the narrow exception recognized in Bowman.
Certified question answered in the affirmative.
JUSTICE COMPTON, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO and JUSTICE
STEPHENSON join, dissenting.
I would answer the certified question in the negative.
The statement of Virginia's public policy against disability
discrimination is contained in the Virginians With Disabilities
Act (VDA), Code §§ 51.5-1 through -52. The General Assembly has
stated explicitly that the VDA provides the exclusive state
remedy for employment discrimination based on disability: "The
relief available for violations of this chapter shall be limited
to the relief set forth in this section." Code § 51.5-46(C).
Violations "of this chapter" refers to disability discrimination
generally. Code § 51.5-41(A) ("No employer shall discriminate in
employment or promotion practices against an otherwise qualified
person with a disability solely because of such disability.").
The majority argues that the VDA does not apply because the
employer, a government contractor, was not covered by the VDA.
Clearly, the VDA does not apply to employers "covered by the
federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973." Code § 51.5-41(F). But
this does not save Bradick's claim.
The VDA's clear statement that it does not apply to
employers covered by the federal Act plainly indicates that the
General Assembly did not intend employees, who could proceed
against their employers under the federal Act, to have the option
of proceeding under the VDA, the exclusive state remedy.