Uncategorized

Unlawful discrimination claims have a “burden-shifting” framework that can make employers verify the legitimacy of their adverse employment decisions.  To reduce the risks associated with such claims, employers should make sure that an employee’s file is well-papered with nondiscriminatory reasons supporting any adverse action.  If done properly, careful documentation can help employers maximize their chances of success in defending against meritless unlawful discrimination claims. The recent case of Hickman v. Kucharski illustrates the fate of…

While it is well-settled that the law in Virginia disfavors covenants not to compete (commonly referred to as “non-competes”), this policy does not apply to non-competes which were entered into and negotiated by sophisticated parties.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refused to void two employees’ non-compete agreements because in the law’s view, sophisticated parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. In the case of Capital One Fin. Corp.

In standard employment agreements and related staffing contracts, companies often include both a non-compete clause and an arbitration clause.  They do so to protect against unfair employee competition, and against the costs and uncertainty of employees’ legal claims.  While arbitration clauses may assist in reducing costs from employment law claims, they are typically ill-suited for resolution of a non-compete dispute.  As a best practice, such arbitration clauses should exclude non-compete disputes from the scope of

In the government contracts arena in the D.C. metropolitan area, agencies can change contractors and staff in a way that disrupts the plans of companies and their personnel.   Individuals often find themselves cut off from a project while still bound by non-competes and other contractual restrictions on their mobility. Nevertheless, employees can often, if careful, successfully navigate these situations through the legal process. If the non-compete is too restrictive and broad, it can be challenged

In ScanSource, Inc. v. The Thurston Group, LLC, in Maryland Federal District Court, a basic non-compete clause survived the first attack in litigation—a motion to dismiss – in part because the two parties had equal bargaining positions. The Thurston Group, LLC (“Thurston”) of Camp Springs, MD, tested the strength of a non-compete it had signed in an agreement with the South Carolina-based ScanSource, Inc.  The clause stated that Thurston would not “solicit, contact, or call upon any customer