Background
Former MaidPro Hampton cleaner Xavier Hudspeth and a nonemployee allegedly planned to rob Connie Hubbard and William Moore after Hudspeth cleaned their home and identified firearms there. MaidPro Hampton fired Hudspeth on February 2, 2022. On February 28, the co-conspirator shot and killed Moore and shot Hubbard during the robbery.
Hubbard and the administrator of Moore’s estate sued MaidPro Hampton, its franchisor, and others. They alleged civil conspiracy, negligence per se, negligent hiring and retention, negligence, and vicarious liability, asserting among other things that MaidPro failed to conduct adequate background checks, investigate reported thefts, or warn customers. The circuit court granted MaidPro Hampton’s pleas in bar and sustained the defendants’ demurrers.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hudspeth’s termination before the shooting barred the civil-conspiracy and negligent-hiring/retention claims against MaidPro Hampton. Under Virginia law, civil conspiracy requires damages from an underlying tort, and the actionable injuries occurred in the attack after Hudspeth’s employment ended. Negligent-hiring and retention liability likewise does not extend to conduct by a former employee.
The court also held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged an assumed duty to warn or protect them from Hudspeth’s later criminal conduct. MaidPro’s statements that cleaners undergo background checks and are known and trusted did not clearly and expressly undertake a continuing duty to protect customers from criminal acts by a former employee. The plaintiffs waived their negligence-per-se argument by inadequately briefing it. Because the claims against the franchisor depended on the unsuccessful claims against MaidPro Hampton or repeated the same deficient duty allegations, dismissal of those claims was proper as well.
Key Takeaways
- An employer’s negligent-hiring or retention liability ends when the employee is no longer employed.
- A civil-conspiracy claim requires injury from an independently wrongful underlying act; alleged planning during employment was insufficient here.
- An assumed duty to protect against third-party criminal conduct requires a clear, express undertaking, not general safety-related advertising.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm temporal boundary around employer liability for former employees’ criminal acts under Virginia negligent-hiring, retention, and vicarious-liability law. Businesses’ general representations about screening or trustworthy personnel do not, without an express undertaking, create an open-ended duty to warn or protect customers from post-employment crimes.