Buck v. Modine Manufacturing Company, No. 6:2023cv00039 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/12/2024. (al)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Buck v. Modine Manufacturing Company Doc. 17 " #/ /' # / #$ / ("$/ %/ , )" /+ / / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG DIVISION 1/12/2024 (" / / (#$ / " / -/ ./ " / $$ !*&-/ " / KELLY BUCK, CASE NO. 6:23-cv-00039 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON Defendant. Plaintiff Kelly Buck has filed a six-count complaint against Defendant Modine Manufacturing Company, her former employer, alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”), Va. Code § 2.2-3900, et seq., and other claims. Modine filed a motion to dismiss one count of the complaint (Count VI), which is a “Bowman claim,” brought pursuant to Virginia common law. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to Modine’s motion to dismiss this count. Virginia law provides for a tort claim of wrongful termination in violation of Virginia public policy, describing it as a limited exception to Virginia’s employment-at-will doctrine. Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 331 S.E.2d 797 (Va. 1985). As Modine notes, Plaintiff cited the VHRA as providing the public policy supporting her Bowman claim, i.e., the public policy that was allegedly violated by Modine’s misconduct. See Compl. ¶¶ 126–32. But, as numerous courts in this District and elsewhere have explained, a Bowman claim cannot be predicated upon a violation of VHRA’s public policy. E.g., Lipford v. Eastman Chem. Co., No. 4:23-cv-15, 2023 WL 7027970, at *3 (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2023). The VHRA itself provides a private right of action and an administrative scheme to effectuate that right, and a plaintiff “cannot work around 1 Dockets.Justia.com the structure, limitations, and remedies of the VHRA by bringing a related Bowman claim.” Id. (quoting Hairston v. Nilit Am., Inc., 4:23-cv-11, 2023 WL 5447370, at *8 (W.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2023)). For the reasons set forth in these decisions and cited in Modine’s brief, noting Plaintiff’s non-opposition, and finding good cause shown, the Court will hereby GRANT Modine’s motion to dismiss Count VI. Dkt. 8. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send this Order to all counsel of record. 12th day of January, 2024. ENTERED this ______ 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
