Declaratory judgment claim dismissed as superfluous

Where a former retail store employee alleged that her termination for refusing to wear a mask at work was in violation of federal and state law, her declaratory judgment claim was dismissed. Her claims and rights have fully matured and the alleged discrimination and retaliation has already occurred, so a declaratory judgment would not achieve the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and is not an appropriate remedy.

Background

Barbara Haigler worked for Royal Farms until Aug. 26, 2021, when she was terminated for refusing to wear a mask. Her first claim against Royal Farms alleges “Religious Discrimination in Violation of Chapter 39 of the Virginia Human Rights Act, Code of Virginia§ 2.2-390, et seq., and Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, U.S.C. § 2000e.”

The second claim alleges “Retaliation in Violation of Chapter 39 of the Virginia Human Rights Act, Code of Virginia§ 2.2-3905.” Finally the “Declaratory Relief Allegations” section of the complaint states that there is a “present and actual controversy” between plaintiff and defendant regarding plaintiff’s rights and duties and that defendant violated those rights.

Royal Farms has filed a partial motion to dismiss. Although the court gave plaintiff an additional 21 days to respond, her counsel has not respond to the pending motion.

Analysis

Defendant states that plaintiff’s rights have matured and, in fact, the first and second claims for relief will address the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, defendant argues, “a judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the respective parties” is unnecessary and plaintiff’s “Declaratory Relief Allegations” should be dismissed with prejudice. The court disagrees.

Plaintiff’s claims and rights have clearly matured and the alleged wrongs have been suffered. In her first two claims, plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against her based on her religion and retaliated against her when she made informal and formal complaints. Further, she seeks various forms of relief to address these alleged wrongs.

A declaratory judgment would not ease any insecurity of impending litigation, nor would it provide any guidance as to how defendant could conform its conduct to avoid committing the alleged wrongs and prevent litigation. Because plaintiff’s claims and rights have fully matured and the alleged wrongs, discrimination and retaliation, have already occurred, a declaratory judgment in this case would not achieve the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and is not an appropriate remedy. Thus, plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to state a claim for declaratory relief under Rule 12(b)(6).

Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss granted.

Haigle v. Royal Farms, Case No. 3:22-cv-71, July 19, 2022. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 022-3-311. 7 pp.