On February 27, 2014, the Virginia Supreme Court strengthened intentional interference claims by holding that their statute of limitations period is 5-years long, and that they can support a business conspiracy cause of action.  Before this ruling, many had argued that the statute of limitations was only 2-years long based on Virginia’s distinction between “personal claims” and “property claims”.  Finding that the right to enforce the performance of a contract and to benefit from advantageous business relationships

Yes, a company can be held liable for encouraging another business to fire an employee unless it has a legitimate reason for doing so.  If the employee is an “at will” employee, as most employees are, then the employee must show that the company intentionally interfered with his or her employment using “improper methods” to cause his or her termination.  Because “improper methods” need not be unlawful, but need only violate an established standard of

Last month, the U.S. District Court in Norfolk granted summary judgment to a defendant employer in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a 52-year-old ex-manager who had been terminated and replaced by someone half her age. In Masterson v. AAAA Self Storage Mgmt Group (2014), the plaintiff, Ellen Masterson, sued her former employer (“AAAA”) for allegedly violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).  The ADEA, of course, makes it unlawful for any employer “to

The U.S. District Court in Alexandria, VA recently granted summary judgment to a defendant employer in a case concerning the “outside sales exemption” of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In Dixon v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC (No. 1:13-cv-01434), Judge James Cacheris ruled that because the employee spent significant time outside the office each week as part of her sales duties, the exemption applied to her as a matter of law. Prospect Mortgage, LLC (“Prospect”) is a

Business owners and HR managers should be aware that even temporary injuries or conditions may place an employee within the purview of the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”), as it has been amended. Congress expanded the definition of “disability” in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and the Fourth Circuit has just interpreted it to include an employee who has been badly injured in an accident and asks for an accommodation to work remotely. In