news




Suit may go forward against Buildings and Grounds chief
Published: December 03, 2008
image

Photo by Amy Condra
David Ligon worked at this county facility, where he was supervised by Cecile Youngblood. Ligon claims that his reputation has been unfairly attacked and disparaged by his former boss.


BY AMY CONDRA
acondra@goochlandgazette.com

Circuit Court Judge Timothy Sanner ruled on Nov. 21 that former Goochland County employee David F. Ligon III may go forward with a suit for defamation against Goochland Buildings and Grounds Superintendent Cecile H. Youngblood.

Ligon’s original complaint, filed on Aug. 1, claimed that on Mar. 11 he was unfairly fired by Youngblood after complaining, first to Commonwealth Attorney Claiborne H. Stokes Jr. and then to the Sheriff’s Department, about his supervisor’s alleged misuse of county resources.

Ligon filed suit against both Youngblood and Goochland County, claiming that he was entitled to damages under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayer Act (VFATA).

VFATA states that any employee who is discharged or discriminated against by his employer because he has initiated a fraud investigation is entitled to “all relief necessary to make the employee whole.”

The civil suit against Goochland County was dismissed after the defense successfully claimed that Ligon is barred from suing the county due to sovereign immunity. 

“I am pleased that the Court has dismissed the County of Goochland completely from the case, and pleased that the Court dismissed the claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayer Act,” said Goochland County Attorney Andrew McRoberts. “I am disappointed that the Court did not dismiss the sole remaining claim—defamation against Mr. Youngblood.”

“This claim alleges defamation from two confidential personnel memos issued to Mr. Ligon by his supervisor, Mr. Youngblood, copied only to the County Human Resources Manager and never distributed further until Mr. Ligon did so by filing the lawsuit and attaching the memos.”

James. B. Thorsen, who is representing Ligon, said, “The basis for our defamation claim are the false statements in my client’s dismissal letter written by Mr. Youngblood, that were sent from Mr. Youngblood to the H.R. office.”

This letter, dated Mar. 11, informed Ligon that he was being fired “due to unsatisfactory job performance which includes disruptive behavior and insubordination.”

Thorsen said that they may still pursue the VFATA claim. “We may have the Virginia Supreme Court review it.”

He added that the trial date will be set in Goochland Circuit Court on Dec. 9.

In the meantime, McRoberts stated last week, “I will be discussing this case with counsel this coming week and the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to see what role the County and I may play in assisting in the vigorous defense of this claim against Mr. Youngblood.”



Reader Comments


Brian Goodman of Goochland, VA  |  Dec. 8, 2008, 04:53 PM

The VFATA statute cited in the story has another paragraph that states:

“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under § 8.01-216.5 based on information discovered by a present or former employee of the Commonwealth during the course of his employment unless that employee first, in good faith, exhausted existing internal procedures for reporting and seeking recovery of the falsely claimed sums through official channels and unless the Commonwealth failed to act on the information provided within a reasonable period of time.”

If Mr. Ligon did not exhaust all of the internal procedures available to him before filing the lawsuit, it is not surprising that the court dismissed the action by citing sovereign immunity.  The failure to invoke VFATA properly by a current or former employee of a state agency or political subdivision robs the court of jurisdiction to hear the VFATA claim, and it appears to cut the current or former employee off from relief for alleged retaliation.

Mr. Ligon may have a pretty good argument on appeal on the VFATA issue if he can show that he indeed did make a good faith effort to report the misuse of county resources through all the proper channels, and suffered retaliation in the process.


Brent of Powhatan  |  Dec. 5, 2008, 11:54 AM

What’s the point of the VFATA if the government has sovereign immunity?  Sounds like an extremely toothless law in that case!  Did the legislators drop the ball when writing it, or were they just trying to preemptively cover their backsides?


Page 1 of 1 pages


Submit Your Comments Below

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Deal of the Day