Uncategorized

In the District of Columbia, an at-will employee generally cannot sue a third party (other than an employer) for causing his or her firing.  This holds true even for a third party strongly adverse to the employee like a former employer seeking to enforce its non-compete agreement against the employee. Metz v. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., No. 12-1694, (D.D.C. Sep. 20, 2013). Stephen Metz filed suit against his former employer BAE Systems…

The Virginia Supreme Court recently answered a question long asked by employment lawyers:  can a court decide a non-competition lawsuit just by reviewing the non-competition agreement?  The Court answered “no,” which means that employers now have a better opportunity to enforce their non-competition agreements and employees must be prepared for extensive litigation after signing and purportedly breaching a non-compete.  The decision is Assurance Data, Inc. v. Malyevac. The Court overturned a lower court’s ruling dismissing a

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) originally set January 1, 2014 as the effective date for employers to fulfill certain reporting provisions on health insurance coverage offered to employees. The IRS pushed back the date to January 1, 2015 because of its own delay in issuing rules to implement the requirement. Last week, however, the agency announced its proposed rules which, after a period for comments, will take effect on a voluntary basis for 2014,

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires most employers to provide notice to current employees and new hires about the forthcoming health insurance exchanges (termed “Marketplaces” by the Department of Labor), and subsidies that may be available through the exchanges for qualified individuals. By October 1, 2013, employers that are subject to the FLSA must provide written notice to employees of the new health care exchanges created by PPACA. Employers may use the

Yes, as shown by a recent Virginia federal decision.  In that case, a company allegedly agreed to buy business information and materials from an ex-employee of a competitor.  The ex-employee was subject to a non-compete, and offered to sell information concerning four customers that he had taken with him after leaving the competitor.  The company never hired the ex-employee, and the competitor did not allege that the company had ever stolen or serviced any of