ROANOKE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen on Wednesday denied Volvo Group North America, LLC’s motion to dismiss a retaliation claim brought by a former production supervisor who alleged he was fired after challenging his manager’s refusal to accommodate a pregnant team member.
Forest Lawton, who worked at Volvo’s New River Valley Assembly Plant in Dublin, Virginia, for 20 years, alleged he was terminated after reporting that his direct supervisor, Jason Wamsley, improperly denied a pregnant employee a chair to use at her workstation.
Lawton, who uses hearing aids due to prior brain surgery, alleged that Wamsley instructed him to remove the chair despite the employee’s need to bend and squat approximately 30 times per day to install air lines. Lawton claims he emailed HR and Labor Relations to challenge the denial, copying Wamsley on the correspondence.
The court found that Lawton’s opposition to the denial of pregnancy-related accommodations was protected activity under the Virginia Human Rights Act, even though the specific statute governing pregnancy accommodations does not explicitly mention third-party opposition.
Volvo argued that Lawton lacked standing because Virginia Code § 2.2-3909, which prohibits denying pregnancy accommodations, contains no language suggesting that anyone other than the pregnant or new or nursing mother can assert rights under that section. The company pointed to the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which explicitly protects employees who oppose unlawful practices, as evidence that the Virginia legislature did not intend similar protection.
Cullen rejected the argument, noting that Virginia Code § 2.2-3909 is part of the broader VHRA statutory scheme. He relied on Virginia Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7), which prohibits discrimination against any individual because they opposed a practice made unlawful.
“The provision’s plain language, then, protects opposition to any practice deemed unlawful discrimination under any provision, including Virginia Code § 2.2-3909,” Cullen wrote.
The judge also dismissed Volvo’s argument that Lawton was attempting to amend his complaint by citing § 2.2-3905 in his brief rather than his amended complaint. Cullen ruled that Lawton’s failure to cite the specific section was not fatal because he styled Count X as a claim for retaliation under the VHRA for opposing the failure to provide accommodations, which is a core component of the statutory scheme.
Lawton was placed on a Plan of Improvement approximately 10 days after returning to work on the plant’s Chassis line and was terminated on April 3, 2024. He alleges Volvo cited inconsistent reasons for the firing, first citing failure to improve on the PIP and later citing a “Work Force Reduction.”
Volvo did not challenge Lawton’s other 10 causes of action, which include claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the VHRA related to his own disability.
Lawton filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Virginia Office of Civil Rights in August 2024 and received a Notice of Right to Sue in August 2025.
The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.