A dispute over statements made following a high-profile employment termination has resulted in a Virginia appellate court affirming the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit brought by a former state official against current officials in the Office of the Attorney General. The decision clarifies legal standards for public employee claims and highlights how sovereign immunity can shield government officials from certain lawsuits.
Monique A. Miles filed a complaint for defamation in August 2022 in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond against Charles “Chuck” Slemp III, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Darrell Jordan, Chief of Staff; Klarke Kilgore, Director of External Affairs; and Victoria LaCivita, Director of Communications. The case was presided over by Judge Bradley B. Cavedo at the circuit level and later reviewed by Judges Causey, Raphael, and Senior Judge Clements at the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
According to filings, Miles applied for and accepted the position of Deputy Attorney General with Virginia’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG) in December 2021. She began work on January 18, 2022. On February 10, 2022, Miles was contacted by a Washington Post reporter regarding social media posts she had made between November 2020 and January 2021 about lawsuits related to the presidential election and events near the White House on January 6th. She stated that she attended what she described as a nonviolent demonstration at that time but did not participate in protests at the Capitol.
Miles alleged that due to her Facebook friendship with Darrell Jordan prior to being hired—having been connected online for four years—she believed OAG leadership was aware of her political views and past statements when they offered her employment. When notified about an impending news story regarding her social media activity, Miles informed Slemp on February 10th. That same day, Slemp and Jordan told her she would be terminated but offered her an opportunity to resign, which she declined. However, OAG issued a press release stating it was their understanding that Miles had resigned.
Subsequently, after Miles informed media outlets that she had not resigned voluntarily, OAG released another statement: “Earlier today, Ms. Miles surrendered her state government ID and equipment before leaving the premises after a conversation with our Chief Deputy Attorney General… It is our understanding that she resigned at that time… Nevertheless, the Office of Attorney General has parted ways with Ms. Miles for lack of transparency during her initial interviews for the position.”
Miles argued these statements were false and defamatory per se because they implied dishonesty and unfitness as an attorney—allegations she said caused reputational harm including loss of clients and exposure to threats. She further alleged OAG officials repeated these statements to members of both the public and Governor Youngkin’s administration despite being notified by Miles that they were inaccurate.
The defendants responded with a demurrer arguing insufficient facts supported claims against them individually. During hearings on this motion, counsel for Miles agreed to withdraw individual capacity claims against all named defendants except under specific conditions—namely if defendants later argued their actions fell outside their employment scope.
The circuit court acknowledged withdrawal of individual capacity claims but allowed official capacity claims to proceed against four remaining defendants (claims against then-Attorney General Jason Miyares were dismissed based on sovereign immunity). Defendants then filed a plea in bar asserting sovereign immunity barred all remaining claims since actions were taken within official capacities.
Miles sought reinstatement of individual capacity claims after this argument but was denied by both trial court and appellate judges who found no triggering condition occurred—the defendants never claimed their actions were outside their employment scope but instead asserted sovereign immunity as state employees acting officially.
The appellate opinion also addressed whether failure to classify withdrawal as a voluntary nonsuit entitled Miles to revive individual claims later; it held such arguments were waived due to lack of timely objection or supporting evidence under statutory requirements.
On appeal, Miles contended it was error not to empanel a jury for factual disputes underlying sovereign immunity issues raised by plea in bar. The appellate panel disagreed: since defendants accepted all facts as pled solely for purposes of legal argument regarding immunity—and did not contest factual allegations—a jury trial was unnecessary under established law.
Ultimately, the Court concluded: “For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the circuit court’s judgment,” affirming denial both to reinstate individual capacity claims and impanel a jury on legal issues presented by plea in bar.
Monique A. Miles represented herself pro se along with Steven A. Krieger (Steven Krieger Law PLLC) listed on briefs; Jack L. White (with Richard J. Batzler; McGuireWoods LLP) appeared for appellees. The case is identified as Record No. 0873-24-2.
Source: 0873242_Miles_v_Slemp_III_Opinion_Virginia_Court_of_Appeals.pdf