Background
James Workman, a home health care provider employee, reported that a colleague’s wife made sexualized comments at an employer-hosted picnic. He alleged this created a hostile work environment violating workplace laws. Weeks later, LHC Group fired Workman for appearing shirtless on a videoconference. Workman sued under Virginia’s whistleblower protection law, alleging retaliation for reporting conduct he believed violated Title VII, a state regulation on patient treatment procedures, and a town ordinance. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding Workman’s belief that the conduct was unlawful was not objectively reasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied a de novo standard of review and affirmed the district court’s application of the reasonable belief standard from Peters v. Jenney. The court rejected Workman’s argument that the district court misapplied the standard, clarifying that the standard requires both a subjective good faith belief and an objectively reasonable belief. The court found it was not objectively reasonable for Workman to believe that unspecified comments about sex by a non-employee guest violated Title VII. Furthermore, the court found it unreasonable to believe the employer violated a state regulation requiring written policies because Workman failed to allege specific problems with those policies. Finally, the court found it unreasonable to believe the conduct violated a town ordinance because Workman alleged only the possibility of a violation.
What it means going forward
Employers in the Fourth Circuit are protected from whistleblower retaliation claims where the reported conduct by non-employees or general comments does not clearly violate specific laws or regulations.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download