Dray v. New Market Poultry Products

Decision Date17 September 1999
Docket NumberRecord No. 981767.
Citation518 S.E.2d 312,258 Va. 187
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesApril L. DRAY v. NEW MARKET POULTRY PRODUCTS, INC.

A. Gene Hart, Jr., Harrisonburg, for appellant.

Thomas E. Ullrich (Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, on brief), Harrisonburg, for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

COMPTON, Justice.

This is another case in which an employee seeks to create an exception to the Commonwealth's established employment-at-will doctrine in order to pursue a common-law claim for wrongful discharge.

In August 1997, appellant April L. Dray, the employee, filed a motion for judgment against appellee New Market Poultry Products, Inc., the employer, seeking damages for alleged wrongful termination of her employment. The employer filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained in a May 1998 "Opinion and Order." The employee appeals.

Because a demurrer, which tests the legal sufficiency of the motion for judgment, admits the correctness of all material facts that are properly pleaded, we shall recite the facts set forth in the motion for judgment as if they are true.

The employee worked for the employer from August 1994 until she was "fired" on September 11, 1996. For about three months prior to her termination, the employee was a "quality control inspector" on the employer's production lines to assure that no adulterated poultry products were distributed.

Two months prior to her termination, the employee "experienced difficulty" in getting other employees to follow proper sanitary rules. "When management ignored and failed to correct the noted deficiencies," the employee, "in conformance to her training and assigned duties ..., informed the plant's on-site governmental inspectors." The inspectors "confirmed the unsanitary conditions," according to the allegations, and "forced" the employer to correct the deficiencies. Subsequently, the employee was told by her supervisor "that she would be fired if she ever again brought plant sanitary deficiencies to the attention of the ... governmental inspectors."

In the week prior to the employee's termination, she and other quality control inspectors condemned as adulterated some poultry products based on improper work performed on the plant's "wash line." On the day of the employee's termination, a government inspector required the employer to "reprocess a large quantity of poultry product due to contamination by metal-laced ice."

The employer's management believed that the employee had informed the government inspector of this adulterated product. She was discharged for violating the "edict" that she not inform the inspectors of unsanitary conditions and adulterated poultry products. When the employee asked the reason for her discharge, the employer's personnel supervisor informed her that "`it was not working out.'"

In her motion for judgment, the employee says she "states a common law claim for wrongful termination of employment in violation of the public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia." Elaborating, the employee asserts the public policy relied upon is articulated by the Commonwealth in the "Virginia Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Act," Code §§ 3.1-884.17 through — 884.36 (the Act).

She alleges the employer terminated her in contravention of the public policy she finds set forth in the Act that is applicable to her. As a result, she asserts, she has incurred damages for which she seeks recovery.

In sustaining the demurrer, the trial court held that the motion for judgment did not set forth a legally cognizable claim for wrongful discharge. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed "to extrapolate" from the broad declaration found in the Act, of an intent to serve "the public good" generally, a specific public policy intended to benefit the class of individuals to which the plaintiff belonged. Thus, the court decided, the employee's claim did not qualify as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The trial court was correct.

Virginia adheres to the common-law doctrine of employment-at-will. When a contract calls for the rendition of services, but the period of the contract's intended duration cannot be determined from its provisions, either party ordinarily is at liberty to terminate the contract at will upon giving reasonable notice of intention to terminate. Dose v. Jamco, Inc., 254 Va. 362, 366, 492 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1997); Stonega Coal and Coke Co. v. Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co., 106 Va. 223, 226, 55 S.E. 551, 552 (1906). But, "the rule is not absolute." Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534, 539, 331 S.E2d 797, 801 (1985).

In Bowman, we recognized that a number of state courts had applied exceptions to the rule of terminability. By way of illustration, we referred to several decisions from other jurisdictions, e.g., Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385 (1980),

that had granted such exceptions, but we did not adopt the rationale or exceptions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • VanBuren v. Va. Highlands Orthopaedic Spine Ctr., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • September 23, 2010
    ...interferes with or violates ( Bowman ) or (ii) a statutorily-imposed duty which the employee is terminated for refusing to violate ( Dray and Mitchem )." Id. Thus, courts have routinely recognized that the focus of the wrongful discharge issue has never been the malfeasance of the employer ......
  • Storey v. Patient First Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 14, 2002
    ...allegation of wrongful discharge to the Bowman claim that the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed in Dray v. New Market Poultry, Inc., 258 Va. 187, 190-91, 518 S.E.2d 312 (Va.1999). In Dray, the plaintiff was a former "quality control inspector" on the defendant-employer's poultry productio......
  • Walsh v. Logothetis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 21, 2014
    ...Virginia does not recognize such a claim as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Dray v. New Market Poultry Products, Inc., 258 Va. 187, 191, 518 S.E.2d 312, 313 (1999) ("[T]he plaintiff seeks to mount a generalized, common-law "whistleblower" retaliatory discharge claim. Such a......
  • Warner v. Buck Creek Nursery, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • May 21, 2001
    ...of the class of persons that the specified public policy was designed to protect." Id.; see also Dray v. New Market Poultry Prods., Inc., 258 Va. 187, 191-92, 518 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1999). Harris and Mitchem, which were decided on the same day, both involved plaintiffs who sought to base wron......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT