Va. Code » Title 65.2. Workers' Compensation » Chapter 3. Application and Effect of Title
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-308 (2026)

Discharge of employee for exercising rights prohibited; civil action; relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. No employer or person shall discharge an employee solely because the employee intends to file or has filed a claim under this title or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under this title. The discharge of a person who has filed a fraudulent claim is not a violation of this section.

B. The employee may bring an action in a circuit court having jurisdiction over the employer or person who allegedly discharged the employee in violation of this section. The court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations and order appropriate relief, including actual damages and attorney's fees to successful claimants and the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee, with back pay plus interest at the judgment rate as provided in § 6.2-302.

1982, c. 327, § 65.1-40.1; 1986, c. 259; 1991, c. 355.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Warner v. Buck Creek Nursery, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D. Va. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warner v. Buck Creek Nursery, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D. Va. 2001). · cites it 28× “Although it may be true that in order to prevail on his claim under Section 65.2-308 Mr. Warner must prove that workers’ compensation retaliation was the sole reason for his discharge, the defendants’ argument must be rejected here because it fails to acknowledge Mr.”
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. Va. 2005). · cites it 11× “Taylor also alleges that WalMart violated Va.Code § 65.2-308 by discharging him solely in retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claims.”
Jordan v. Clay's Rest Home, Inc., 483 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 1997). · cites it 10× “Finally, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a retaliatory discharge claim under Code § 65.2-308 is insufficient, as a matter of law, if a plaintiff alleges only that she incurred a job-related injury and was discharged after notifying her employer that she intended…”
Mullins v. Virginia Lutheran Homes, Inc., 479 S.E.2d 530 (Va. 1997). · cites it 10× “She alleged under Code §65.2-308 1 that the employer discharged her because she had filed a claim under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Dunn v. Bergen Brunswig Drug Co., 848 F. Supp. 645 (E.D. Va. 1994). · cites it 17× “In Count I, plaintiff alleged a supplemental state claim of retaliatory discharge under Code of Virginia § 65.2-308. In Count II, plaintiff alleged a wrongful denial of plaintiffs disability benefits under Bergen Brunswig’s group disability benefit program.”
Shaw v. Titan Corp., 498 S.E.2d 696 (Va. 1998). · cites it 6× “There, in deciding whether a plaintiff presented prima facie evidence to establish that she was fired “solely” because she intended to file a workers’ compensation claim, our determination was governed by the language of Code § 65.2-308. 253 Va. at 193, 483 S.E.”
Ligon v. Cnty. of Goochland, 689 S.E.2d 666 (Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “In addition to the "whistleblower protection" provision in the VFATA, the General Assembly also has provided a statutory cause of action for retaliatory discharge for any employee discharged for filing a safety or health complaint, see Code §§ 40.”
Michael v. Sentara Health Sys., 939 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Va. 1996). · cites it 2× “01-248 applies to related actions pursuant to Virginia Code section 65.2-308 for wrongful termination of employment in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”
Purcell v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 458 S.E.2d 291 (Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “, filed a motion for judgment against his former employer, Tidewater Construction Corporation, on February 3, 1994, pursuant to Code § 65.2-308. Purcell alleged that Tidewater wrongfully terminated his employment in retaliation for his filing a workers’ compensation claim.”
Sutter v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Virginia, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 753 (E.D. Va. 1996). · cites it 2× “01-248 governs claims for wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim, pursuant to Va.Code Ann. § 65.2-308); Costantino v. Jaycor, 1987 WL 37097 (4th Cir.”
O'CONNELL v. Isocor Corp., 56 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Va. 1999). · cites it 4× “Count II alleges wrongful termination under Virginia Code § 65.2-308, the provision that prohibits adverse employment actions against employees who file worker’s compensation claims.”
Mullins v. Virginia Lutheran Homes, Inc., 44 Va. Cir. 156 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 12× “She alleged under Code § 65.2-308 that the employer discharged her from her employment for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-308(A) — 8 cases
Warner v. Buck Creek Nursery, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D. Va. 2001). “Although it may be true that in order to prevail on his claim under Section 65.2-308 Mr. Warner must prove that workers’ compensation retaliation was the sole reason for his discharge, the defendants’ argument must be rejected here because it fails to acknowledge Mr.”
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. Va. 2005). “Taylor also alleges that WalMart violated Va.Code § 65.2-308 by discharging him solely in retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claims.”
Jordan v. Clay's Rest Home, Inc., 483 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 1997). “Finally, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a retaliatory discharge claim under Code § 65.2-308 is insufficient, as a matter of law, if a plaintiff alleges only that she incurred a job-related injury and was discharged after notifying her employer that she intended…”
Shaw v. Titan Corp., 498 S.E.2d 696 (Va. 1998). “There, in deciding whether a plaintiff presented prima facie evidence to establish that she was fired “solely” because she intended to file a workers’ compensation claim, our determination was governed by the language of Code § 65.2-308. 253 Va. at 193, 483 S.E.”
Adrienne Mallard v. Next Day Temps, Inc. & Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-308(B) — 2 cases
Warner v. Buck Creek Nursery, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 246 (W.D. Va. 2001). “Although it may be true that in order to prevail on his claim under Section 65.2-308 Mr. Warner must prove that workers’ compensation retaliation was the sole reason for his discharge, the defendants’ argument must be rejected here because it fails to acknowledge Mr.”
Shifflett v. Lewis, 47 Va. Cir. 95 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.