Francis v. Computer Learning

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE A. FRANCIS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 98-2801
COMPUTER LEARNING CENTERS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-1408-A)
Submitted: October 14, 1999
Decided: October 27, 1999
Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, Virginia; Christopher G. Hoge,
CROWLEY, HOGE & FEIN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Burton J. Fishman, Jill I. Prater, TUCKER FLYER, P.C., Washing-
ton, D.C., for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to
the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the
panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Leslie A. Francis, Jr., appeals from the district court's order dis-
missing his wrongful discharge action against Computer Learning
Centers, Inc. ("CLC"), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Francis filed a wrongful discharge action in Virginia state court,
alleging that he was terminated because he refused to participate in
illegal and fraudulent activities being carried out by CLC and that he
was asked to contribute $1000 to the re-election campaign of Newt
Gingrich and then submit to the company for a bogus reimbursement
of that amount. CLC removed the action to federal court, based on
diversity jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss the complaint. In oppos-
ing the motion, Francis contended that his discharge violated Virginia
public policy as embodied in the Virginia Consumer Protection Act
("Act"), Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196 to -207 (Michie 1998), and cer-
tain regulations of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia
enacted pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 23-268 (Michie 1997).
After a hearing, the district court determined that it need not decide
whether the Act and the regulations were adequate bases for satisfy-
ing the public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.
The court found that even if they were, Francis did not fall within the
"zone of interests that the relevant [statute and regulations] set out to
protect." (J.A. at 81). The court therefore granted CLC's motion to
dismiss.
On appeal, Francis argues that the requirement that a plaintiff be
within the zone of protection of the particular public policies on
which he relies to satisfy the exception is overly restrictive and incon-
sistent with Virginia case law. We disagree. The Supreme Court of
Virginia recently held that a plaintiff claiming wrongful discharge and
2
seeking to avail himself of the public-policy exception to the
employment-at-will doctrine must fall within the protective reach of
the statutes or regulations the plaintiff claims are violated by his ter-
mination. See Dray v. New Mkt. Poultry Prods., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 312(Va. 1999). Accordingly, after careful review of the record in this
case, the applicable legal authorities, and the briefs of the parties, we
affirm the decision to grant CLC's motion to dismiss on the reasoning
of the district court. We grant CLC's motion to submit the case on
briefs because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3