Background
Connie Hubbard and William Moore hired MaidPro Hampton Roads to clean their Norfolk home after receiving assurances that cleaners underwent background checks and were known and trustworthy. MaidPro hired Xavier Hudspeth without a background check despite alleged criminal and gang history. After two customers reported firearms missing from homes Hudspeth had cleaned, the company rehired him and sent him to Hubbard and Moore’s home.
Hudspeth allegedly searched the home for guns and coordinated with Andra Brown, a nonemployee, to rob it. MaidPro later ran a background check, suspended Hudspeth on February 1, 2022, and terminated him on February 2. On February 28, Brown fatally shot Moore and wounded Hubbard during the robbery. Hubbard and Moore’s estate sued MaidPro Hampton, its franchisor, and others; the circuit court granted MaidPro Hampton’s pleas in bar on several claims and sustained demurrers to the negligence-based claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the pleas in bar properly raised the dispositive fact that Hudspeth had been terminated before the shooting. Under Virginia law, MaidPro could not be vicariously liable for the civil-conspiracy claim because the injury-producing underlying torts occurred after the employment relationship ended. The court likewise held that negligent-hiring and negligent-retention claims are not viable for conduct committed after the employee is no longer employed. The plaintiffs also waived their negligence-per-se argument through inadequate briefing.
The court further held that the complaints did not adequately plead an assumed duty by MaidPro Hampton or the franchisor to warn or protect Hubbard and Moore from Hudspeth’s later criminal conduct. Advertising that employees receive background checks and are trustworthy did not expressly undertake a broader, continuing duty to protect customers from third-party criminal acts after an employee’s termination. Because the claims against the franchisor depended on the same deficient negligence theory, its demurrers were also properly sustained.
Key Takeaways
- Virginia negligent-hiring and negligent-retention liability ends when the employee’s employment ends.
- A civil-conspiracy claim requires injury from an independently tortious act; pre-termination planning alone did not create recoverable conspiracy damages here.
- An employer’s general safety representations do not create a duty to warn or protect against later criminal acts without a clear, express undertaking.
Why It Matters
The decision applies a firm temporal limit to employer liability for former employees’ criminal conduct, even where plaintiffs allege deficient screening and warning failures during employment. It also underscores that, under Virginia law, an assumed duty to protect against third-party criminal acts must be stated clearly and expressly rather than inferred from general assurances about employee screening or trustworthiness.