Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
30 Virginia opinions name it 13 courts 1988–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Sevamp, Inc.green2 sentences2009The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia analyzed the VCPA against the rubric set forth in Miller v. Sevamp, Inc., 234 Va. 462 (1987), and found that the statute generally protected the public at large, but did not expressly or implicitly enunciate any public policy adequate to a Bowman claim because it did not protect any category of interests defined as policy predicates in Bowman and Sevamp. 2009The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia analyzed the VCPA against the rubric set forth in Miller v. Sevamp, Inc., 234 Va. 462 (1987), and found that the statute generally protected the public at large, but did not expressly or implicitly enunciate any public policy adequate to a Bowman claim because it did not protect any category of interests defined as policy predicates in Bowman and Sevamp. | 4 | 10 |
City of Virginia Beach v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2009The Supreme Court of Virginia further restricted the Bowman exception in City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 (2000), and Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179 , 523 S.E.2d 246 (2000), by clarifying that only the violation of two types of statutes may give rise to a viable wrongful discharge claim: (1) a statute explicitly stating it expresses a public policy of the Commonwealth or (2) a statute that implicitly expresses an established state public policy which is designed to protect the property rights, personal freedoms, health, safety, or welfare of the people in general 2009The Supreme Court of Virginia further restricted the Bowman exception in City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 (2000), and Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179 , 523 S.E.2d 246 (2000), by clarifying that only the violation of two types of statutes may give rise to a viable wrongful discharge claim: (1) a statute explicitly stating it expresses a public policy of the Commonwealth or (2) a statute that implicitly expresses an established state public policy which is designed to protect the property rights, personal freedoms, health, safety, or welfare of the people in general | 2 | 3 |
Mitchem v. Countsgreen2 sentences2009The Supreme Court of Virginia further restricted the Bowman exception in City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 (2000), and Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179 , 523 S.E.2d 246 (2000), by clarifying that only the violation of two types of statutes may give rise to a viable wrongful discharge claim: (1) a statute explicitly stating it expresses a public policy of the Commonwealth or (2) a statute that implicitly expresses an established state public policy which is designed to protect the property rights, personal freedoms, health, safety, or welfare of the people in general 2009The Supreme Court of Virginia further restricted the Bowman exception in City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 (2000), and Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179 , 523 S.E.2d 246 (2000), by clarifying that only the violation of two types of statutes may give rise to a viable wrongful discharge claim: (1) a statute explicitly stating it expresses a public policy of the Commonwealth or (2) a statute that implicitly expresses an established state public policy which is designed to protect the property rights, personal freedoms, health, safety, or welfare of the people in general | 2 | 3 |
Francis v. Nat'l Accrediting Comm'n of Career Arts & Sci., Inc.green2 sentences2025As stated above, a Scenario 2 Bowman claim asserts that the - 11 - “public policy violated by the employer was explicitly expressed in the statute and the employee was clearly a member of that class of persons directly entitled to the protection.” Francis, 293 Va. at 172 (emphasis added) (quoting Rowan, 263 Va. at 214 ). 2025Francis, 293 Va. at 172-73 (citations omitted) (quoting Rowan, 263 Va. at 213-14 ). | 2 | 2 |
Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc.green2 sentences2009Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 486, 492-93 (E.D. 2009Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 486, 492-93 (E.D. | 2 | 2 |
Bowman v. State Bank of Keysvillegreen2 sentences2024“The phrase ‘Bowman claim’ stems from this Court’s decision in Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534 (1985), in which we first recognized an exception to the doctrine of employment-at-will based on an employer’s violation of public policy in the discharge of an employee.” Rowan v. Tractor Supply Co., 263 Va. 209, 213 (2002). 2002DISCUSSION The phrase “Bowman claim” stems from this Court’s decision in Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534 , 331 S.E.2d 797 (1985), in which we first recognized an exception to the doctrine of employment-at-will based on an employer’s violation of public policy in the discharge of an employee. | 1 | 5 |
Doss v. Jamco, Inc.green2 sentences1998Even if discrimination based on age and disability may be a basis for a Bowman claim, the defendants argue that the recent decision of Doss v. Jamco, Inc., 254 Va. 362 (1997), requires that its demurrer be sustained since the Virginia Human Rights Act was amended on July 1, 1995, so as to preclude any further Bowman claims after the effective date of the amendment. 1998Doss v. Jamco, Inc., 254 Va. 362 (1997). | 1 | 3 |
Rowan v. Tractor Supply Co.green2 sentences2025As stated above, a Scenario 2 Bowman claim asserts that the - 11 - “public policy violated by the employer was explicitly expressed in the statute and the employee was clearly a member of that class of persons directly entitled to the protection.” Francis, 293 Va. at 172 (emphasis added) (quoting Rowan, 263 Va. at 214 ). 2024“The phrase ‘Bowman claim’ stems from this Court’s decision in Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534 (1985), in which we first recognized an exception to the doctrine of employment-at-will based on an employer’s violation of public policy in the discharge of an employee.” Rowan v. Tractor Supply Co., 263 Va. 209, 213 (2002). | 1 | 2 |
Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc.green2 sentences2008Since then, the Court has recognized only three categories of Bowman claims: (a) discharge that violates a policy enabling the exercise of an employee’s statutorily created right, Bowman, 229 Va. at 539 , 331 S.E.2d at 801 ; (b) termination of an employee who was clearly a member of the class of persons directly entitled to the protection enunciated by the public policy, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., 253 Va. 121 , 480 S.E.2d 502 (1997); and (c) discharge based on the employee’s refusal to engage in a criminal act, Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179, 190, 523 S.E.2d 246, 252 (2000). 1997See Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, 253 Va. 121, 126 (1997) (endorsing the Lockhart rationale); Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 254 Va. 156 (1997); see also Seay v. Grace Jefferson Home, 26 Va. Cir. 355 (Richmond 1992) (Policy underlying specific code provision was sufficient basis for Bowman claim even though statute did not grant express right to plaintiff). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Swann (ORDER)green1 sentence2025Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. 13 The record reflects that in determining Bowman’s sentence, the trial court considered Bowman’s decision to be tried by a jury on three separate occasions: 1) during Bowman’s first sentencing hearing; 2) during the hearing on Bowman’s motion to modify after the trial court vacated the initial sentence; and 3) during Bowman’s final sentencing hearing after the trial court pronounced its sentence. 14 “Code § 8.01-678 makes ‘harmless-error review required in all cases.’” Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 420 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Swan | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Whitegreen1 sentence2025Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. 13 The record reflects that in determining Bowman’s sentence, the trial court considered Bowman’s decision to be tried by a jury on three separate occasions: 1) during Bowman’s first sentencing hearing; 2) during the hearing on Bowman’s motion to modify after the trial court vacated the initial sentence; and 3) during Bowman’s final sentencing hearing after the trial court pronounced its sentence. 14 “Code § 8.01-678 makes ‘harmless-error review required in all cases.’” Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 420 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Swan | 1 | 1 |
Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County v. County of Brunswickgreen2 sentences2025See Concerned Taxpayers, 249 Va. at 330 . 2025See Concerned Taxpayers, 249 Va. at 330 . | 1 | 1 |
McFarland v. Virginia Retirement Services of Chesterfield, L.L.C.green2 sentences2011Servs. of Chesterfield, 477 F. Supp. 2d 727, 733 (E.D. 2011Servs. of Chesterfield, 477 F. Supp. 2d 727, 733 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
McClosky v. Warren County Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences2011See McCloskey v. Warren County Dept. of Social Services, 81 Va. Cir. 35, 37 (Warren County 2010) (citing Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 ). 2011See McCloskey v. Warren County Dept. of Social Services, 81 Va. Cir. 35, 37 (Warren County 2010) (citing Harris, 259 Va. 220 , 523 S.E.2d 239 ). | 1 | 1 |
Parris v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2001The record contains sufficient evidence that Bowman's plea was "without semblance of coercion and without fear or duress of any kind." Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321, 325 , 52 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1949). 2001The record contains sufficient evidence that Bowman's plea was "without semblance of coercion and without fear or duress of any kind." Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321, 325 , 52 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
McBroom v. DynCorpgreen2 sentences1997See McBroom v. DynCorp, 38 Va. Cir. 109 (Fairfax Co. 1995) (Bowman rule applies to federal as well as state policies). 1997See McBroom v. DynCorp, 38 Va. Cir. 109 (Fairfax Co. 1995) (Bowman rule applies to federal as well as state policies). | 1 | 1 |
Seay v. Grace Jefferson Homegreen1 sentence1997See Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, 253 Va. 121, 126 (1997) (endorsing the Lockhart rationale); Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 254 Va. 156 (1997); see also Seay v. Grace Jefferson Home, 26 Va. Cir. 355 (Richmond 1992) (Policy underlying specific code provision was sufficient basis for Bowman claim even though statute did not grant express right to plaintiff). | 1 | 1 |
Seitz v. Philip Morris, Inc.green1 sentence1990See id. at 430 (Bowman exception limited to protecting employee conduct involving public policy occurring outside the work place). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lockhart v. Commonwealth Education Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2025The amended complaint alleged that appellant had no opportunity to review “exculpatory documents”—i.e., documents that would show “there was no ‘homicide’ case[]file in the 8 Lockhart recognized a Bowman claim based on a public policy against gender discrimination, which was explicitly expressed in the VHRA. 247 Va. at 101-05 . 2025The amended complaint alleged that appellant had no opportunity to review “exculpatory documents”—i.e., documents that would show “there was no ‘homicide’ case[]file in the 8 Lockhart recognized a Bowman claim based on a public policy against gender discrimination, which was explicitly expressed in the VHRA. 247 Va. at 101-05 . | 6 | 1995–2025 |
Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences1998In Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 254 Va. 156 (1997), the Supreme Court held that a Bowman claim is stated where an employee is discharged on account of his disability since it is against the public policy to discriminate on the basis of disability under both the Virginia Human Rights Act and the Virginians with Disabilities Act. 1998In Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 254 Va. 156 (1997), the Supreme Court held that a Bowman claim is stated where an employee is discharged on account of his disability since it is against the public policy to discriminate on the basis of disability under both the Virginia Human Rights Act and the Virginians with Disabilities Act. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Vansant and Gusler, Inc. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025See Concerned Taxpayers, 249 Va. at 330 ; Vansant & Gusler, Inc., 245 Va. at 360 . 2025See Concerned Taxpayers, 249 Va. at 330 ; Vansant & Gusler, Inc., 245 Va. at 360 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Millsap v. Synon, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The statute also provides in § 40.1-29(C) that “[n]o employer shall withhold any part of the wages or salaries of any employee except for payroll, wage or withholding taxes or in accordance with law, without the written and signed authorization of the employee.” The only published decision from a Virginia state court addressing a Bowman claim in relation to Va. Code § 40.1-29 is a Fairfax Circuit Court decision decided in 1990, Millsap v. Synon, Inc., 19 Va. Cir. 261 (1990). 2015The statute also provides in § 40.1-29(C) that “[n]o employer shall withhold any part of the wages or salaries of any employee except for payroll, wage or withholding taxes or in accordance with law, without the written and signed authorization of the employee.” The only published decision from a Virginia state court addressing a Bowman claim in relation to Va. Code § 40.1-29 is a Fairfax Circuit Court decision decided in 1990, Millsap v. Synon, Inc., 19 Va. Cir. 261 (1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bowman
green
2 sentences2012The treating physician based this initial opinion -6- reflects the principle that, when one physician renders two conflicting opinions – the first opinion being an assumption made without the benefit of reviewing the claimant’s medical history, and the second opinion occurring after the physician has reviewed the claimant’s medical history – the first opinion is not entitled to any weight because it is “based upon a faulty premise,” leaving the more informed opinion as the only remaining opinion that is “based upon the facts.” Id. at 252 , 329 S.E.2d at 16 . 2012Employer compares this case to Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bowman, 229 Va. 252 , 329 S.E.2d 15 (1985), but the decision in that case simply is not controlling or even persuasive on the very different circumstances in this case. 2 The Supreme Court’s holding in Clinchfield Coal Co. 2 In Clinchfield Coal Co., Bowman’s treating physician initially opined that Bowman’s knee problems were causually related to the 1978 industrial accident that was the subject of Bowman’s claim of a compensable injury. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Slayton v. Parrigan
green
2 sentences2011Slayton, 215 Va. at 29 , 205 S.E.2d at 682 . 2011Slayton, 215 Va. at 29 , 205 S.E.2d at 682 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Dray v. New Market Poultry Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Dray v. New Market Poultry, Inc., 258 Va. 187, 191 , 518 S.E.2d 312 (1999). 2011Dray v. New Market Poultry, Inc., 258 Va. 187, 191 , 518 S.E.2d 312 (1999). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lawrence Chrysler Plymouth Corp. v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2000As we said in Lawrence Chrysler, 251 Va. at 98 , 465 S.E.2d at 809 , the Bowman exception is not broad enough to make actionable the discharge of an at-will employee that violates only private rights or interests. 2000As we said in Lawrence Chrysler, 251 Va. at 98 , 465 S.E.2d at 809 , the Bowman exception is not broad enough to make actionable the discharge of an at-will employee that violates only private rights or interests. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Humphrey v. Columbia/HCA John Randolph, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Va. September 25, 1998) (rejecting use of § 18.2-57, the criminal prohibition against assault and battery, as public policy for a Bowman claim); Humphrey v. Columbia/HCA John Randolph, Inc., 46 Va. Cir. 109 (Chesterfield County, June 26, 1998) (rejecting use of Virginia Code Section 54.1-3400 et seq., the criminal prohibition for misbranding a drug, as public policy basis for a Bowman claim). 1998Va. September 25, 1998) (rejecting use of § 18.2-57, the criminal prohibition against assault and battery, as public policy for a Bowman claim); Humphrey v. Columbia/HCA John Randolph, Inc., 46 Va. Cir. 109 (Chesterfield County, June 26, 1998) (rejecting use of Virginia Code Section 54.1-3400 et seq., the criminal prohibition for misbranding a drug, as public policy basis for a Bowman claim). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McCarthy v. Texas Instruments, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998This Court does not read the Federal Courts’ holdings in Williamson and McCarthy, supra, to prohibit a Bowman claim based on the Virginia Constitution, so long as the remedy has not been prescribed elsewhere by the legislature. 1998This Court does not read the Federal Courts’ holdings in Williamson and McCarthy, supra, to prohibit a Bowman claim based on the Virginia Constitution, so long as the remedy has not been prescribed elsewhere by the legislature. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bowman v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 136 , 445 S.E.2d at 113 . 1998Id. at 136 , 445 S.E.2d at 113 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Bagley
red
1 sentence1994As in Bagley , when Bowman’s counsel did not receive Young’s report or any part of it in response to his pre-trial request for Brady material, it was reasonable for defense counsel to assume that no such evidence existed and “to make pretrial and trial decisions on the basis of this assumption.” Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682-83 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Dennis v. County School Bd. of Rappahannock Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.