Law360 (March 31, 2026, 2:25 PM EDT) -- A worker's suit accusing a production supervisor at a packaging company of firing him after he reported violations for unpaid overtime should have stayed alive, the Fourth Circuit ruled, saying a Virginia federal court erroneously ruled that he couldn't support his claim and that he fraudulently joined an in-state supervisor.


The Fourth Circuit panel said "when a defendant cries fraudulent joinder, he's asking the district court to do something extraordinary — maintain jurisdiction over a case that should, on its face, proceed in state court." (File photo)

In a published and unanimous opinion Monday, a three-judge panel reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss Jeremy James Skidmore's wrongful termination suit against Michael Schinke and Gail Saul, saying there is a chance the former employee could prevail on his claim.

"Skidmore's claim against Schinke might not be strong. It might even be the legal equivalent of a half-court shot. But as anybody who's watched enough basketball knows, half-court shots sometimes go in. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No," the panel said.

Thomas Eugene Strelka of Virginia Employment Law responded with "swish" to a request for comment, referring to the panel's basketball reference.

Representatives for Schinke and Saul did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Skidmore claimed in his complaint filed in state court in May 2024 that Schinke, a production supervisor who reported to Saul, took his supervisory responsibility away when he reported alleged overtime violations Sonoco engaged in.

The duo terminated him in 2022, according to court records.

Skidmore lodged one claim under Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville , a 1985 Virginia Supreme Court decision that allows employees to sue their employers for unlawful termination if the discharge was in violation of a "right conferred by statute."

Under Bowman, employees can sue both their actual employers and a person who acted in violation of public policy, the panel said.

Skidmore claimed Schinke and Saul violated public policy by flouting a section of Virginia law that prohibits employers from firing employees who inquire about their own or other employees' wages or compensation.

Schinke and Saul removed Skidmore's complaint to federal court in July 2024, saying Saul wasn't a Virginia citizen and "Skidmore fraudulently joined Schinke as a nondiverse defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction," according to Wednesday's opinion.

Under the concept of diversity jurisdiction, district courts have jurisdiction over civil action in which the amount of controversy is more than $75,000 between citizens of different states, the opinion said.

The duo also asked the district court to toss Skidmore's suit for failure to state a claim.

In March 2025, the district court denied Skidmore's motion to remand his case to state court, agreeing to toss his suit.

The lower court concluded that Schinke was a Virginia citizen, but agreed with the defendants that Skidmore didn't show there was a "possibility of a viable claim against Schinke."

The panel disagreed with that conclusion Monday, saying "when a defendant cries fraudulent joinder, he's asking the district court to do something extraordinary — maintain jurisdiction over a case that should, on its face, proceed in state court."

A district court should not "wrestle with thorny state law questions" and when in doubt, remand the case to state court, the panel said.

The panel also said no court in Virginia has tackled whether a plaintiff can lodge a claim under Bowman for a violation of the state law Skidmore relied on.

"And while the defendants rely on cases analyzing other statutes and general principles concerning Bowman claims, neither those cases nor those principles definitively foreclose Skidmore's specific claim against Schinke," the panel said. "So, even if the defendants have the better of this argument, it is not impossible that Skidmore could prevail."

U.S. Circuit Judges G. Steven Agee, Stephanie D. Thacker and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.

Skidmore is represented by Thomas Eugene Strelka of Virginia Employment Law.

Schinke and Saul represented by Kevin D. Holden and Timothy J. Gorde Jr. of Jackson Lewis PC.

The case is Jeremy Skidmore v. Michael Schinke, case number 25-1436, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.