SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Virginia Significant Case Summary

Khan v. McAlister
Virginia Court of Appeals
Record No. 0501-25-4

Decided: May 5, 2026

Under the Virginia Human Rights Act, the term “employer” means a person or entity employing more than five people. An “agent of such person” does not broaden this definition to permit suits against employees in their individual capacity.

Background

In 2024, Plaintiff sued the Town of Purcellville, and its Chief of Police, in her official and individual capacities, for discriminatory conduct under the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). Plaintiff applied for a police officer position and submitted to a fitness of duty exam which revealed an “unusual” visual acuity finding. Despite this, he was hired “as is” as a police officer trainee on June 22, 2022. Plaintiff graduated from police academy with over 200 hours of training with no issues. In February 2023, the Chief of Police reassigned Plaintiff to an administrative role. Plaintiff requested reinstatement and accommodations under the VHRA. Ultimately, Plaintiff was terminated on September 20, 2023, for “performance issues.”

Plaintiff’s claims against the Town and the Chief of Police in her official capacity were dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity. The Chief of Police, in her individual capacity, filed a demurrer alleging she did not meet the definition of “employer” under the VHRA, and pleas in bar alleging a failure to follow administrative remedies in a timely manner. The trial court sustained the demurrer and pleas in bar and dismissed the claim. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling only on the demurrer and dismissed the case. It declined to rule on the issues raised by the pleas in bar. In Va. Code §2.2-3905.1 of the VHRA, “employer” is defined as “any person, or agent of such person, employing more than five employees….” The Chief of Police is not an “employer” under the plain meaning of this language. It was a question of first impression for the Court of Appeals to then consider if the use of “agent of such [employer]” broadened the statute to permit personal suits against individual employees. The Court held it did not. While agents can be sued individually for certain tortious conduct under common law, a claim alleging discrimination after a reasonable disability accommodation request is a claim for purely statutory rights. The inclusion of “agent” in the statute only imposes respondeat superior. It does not allow an individual claim like the one Plaintiff attempted to maintain against the Chief of Police.

Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle Kent at (804) 566-3571 or dkent@tthlaw.com.