News & Insights
Virginia Supreme Court Tightens Whistleblower Filing Deadlines
Ingleside Emergency Group, LLC v. Hollis, Record No. 241064 (Va. Dec. 18, 2025)
The Supreme Court of Virginia hands down two opinions and one published order today. In this opinion, the Court finds that a whistleblower’s one-year statute of limitations begins running the moment an adverse employment action occurs—even if the employee doesn’t fully understand its significance until later.
Dr. Michele Hollis worked for medical staffing companies under contracts that could be terminated with 90 days’ notice. In late 2020, she reported what she believed were fraudulent billing practices and mismanagement of COVID-19 relief funds. On March 2, 2021, she discovered that she wasn’t scheduled for April work. After unsuccessful attempts to get answers, she received a June 2, 2021 letter stating that her employment was considered terminated effective March 3, 2021. She filed suit, alleging violations of the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act (VWPA) on April 1, 2022, more than one year after the schedule removal but within one year of the termination letter.
The defendants filed a plea in bar, arguing the VWPA claim was time-barred because the retaliatory action occurred in March 2021, more than one year before suit was filed. The trial court denied the plea but certified the question for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s denial, but Supreme Court reversed both lower courts.
The Supreme Court held that Dr. Hollis’s whistleblower retaliation claim accrued in March 2021 when she was removed from the work schedule, not in June 2021 when she received formal notice of termination. Applying Virginia’s long-standing rule that a cause of action accrues upon “the slightest injury,” the Court determined that the removal from the schedule was itself the “prohibited retaliatory action” under the VWPA that triggered the one-year statute of limitations. The Court emphasized that under Virginia law, “the act itself is regarded as the ground of the action,” and the limitations period is not tolled merely because the plaintiff did not immediately understand the full extent or permanence of the injury.
The Court rejected Hollis’s argument that the lack of clear communication from her employer meant no actionable injury had occurred until she received the termination letter in June. The Court noted that Hollis was sufficiently aware of the injury in March 2021—evidenced by her immediate attempts to obtain an explanation and her retention of counsel—even if she did not appreciate its full adverse nature at that time. Because Hollis filed suit on April 1, 2022, more than one year after the March 2021 removal from the schedule, her VWPA claim was time-barred.