Ian Auckland v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

── Ian Auckland v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1933 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 1 of 24 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1933 IAN LEWIS AUCKLAND, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; HILARY ZACHRY, in her individual capacity and professional capacity, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:24-cv-00501-TTC-CKM) Submitted: March 16, 2026 Decided: June 9, 2026 Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished opinion. Judge Harris wrote the opinion, in which Judge Benjamin joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan M. Albano, Laura A. Saracina, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1933 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 2 of 24 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: Ian Auckland was fired by his former employer, Gilead Sciences, Inc., after a female co-worker, Hilary Zachry, alleged he made an unwelcome, sexually explicit comment to her at a work conference. Auckland then sued Gilead and Zachry in federal court in Virginia, bringing state-law defamation claims. According to Auckland, Zachry knowingly made false accusations against him, and Gilead, as her employer, was vicariously liable for her actions. The district court dismissed the claims against both defendants, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Zachry – who lived and worked in California – and that Auckland failed to state a claim for vicarious liability against Gilead. We agree that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Zachry. But we conclude that Auckland sufficiently stated a claim for vicarious liability against Gilead under Virginia law, which recognizes a presumption in favor of vicarious liability under conditions satisfied at this stage in the case. We therefore affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1933 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 3 of 24 I. A. Ian Auckland worked for Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”), a biopharmaceutical company, for over nine years. 1 Gilead is headquartered in California, but Auckland lived in Southwest Virginia and worked remotely from his home. In 2023, Gilead started a preceptorship program with its Key Accounts Team, a group that worked to secure partnerships and increase the market for Gilead’s cancer drugs. Employees accepted into this program would shadow members of the Key Accounts Team to gain experience with the team’s work, and participation in the preceptorship program was viewed as a good stepping-stone to a full-time position on the team. Auckland’s colleague Buffy Moran, a member of the Key Accounts Team who also lived and worked in Virginia, recommended Auckland for the preceptorship program, and Auckland applied. Later that summer, Auckland attende