September 23, 2009

Virginia Employment Law: Employee Breach of Contract, Duty of Loyalty and Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

I often represent clients on claims that an employer’s business interests were harmed by the disloyal or otherwise unlawful conduct of a former employee. Typically, these employer lawsuits allege breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, conspiracy, tortious interference and related claims. Below are some questions and answers designed to present these concepts in general terms.

Question: What is the common law fiduciary duty of loyalty?

Continue reading "Virginia Employment Law: Employee Breach of Contract, Duty of Loyalty and Misappropriation of Trade Secrets" »

Bookmark and Share

March 24, 2009

Virginia Employment Law: Virginia Business Conspiracy Act, VA Code §§ 18.2-499 - 18.2-500

As a courtesy to Virginia employment lawyers and employers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides summaries and links to key business and employment law statutes. While the Virginia Conspiracy Act does not protect employment interests, it is often invoked in Virginia business litigation on allegations that a former employee conspired with a subsequent employer or others to injure the former employer's business interests.

Specifically, the Virginia Conspiracy Act provides for civil actions based on a conspiracy by two or more persons to injure a person or entity's business interests (not employment interests). In addition to injunctive relief, a prevailing plaintiff may recover treble damages (three-times the amount of damages), plus attorneys' fees and costs.

Key provisions of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act follow:

Continue reading "Virginia Employment Law: Virginia Business Conspiracy Act, VA Code §§ 18.2-499 - 18.2-500" »

Bookmark and Share

July 1, 2008

D.C. Circuit Employment Law Case: Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. EEOC (Injunction Against EEOC Concerning Disclosure of Employer's Confidential Information to Plaintiffs)

In a key ruling for employers who need to protect the confidentiality of information submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in connection with charges filed by employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded this case, instructing the district court to issue an injunction prohibiting the EEOC from disclosing an employer's confidential information to plaintiffs or other third parties without notifying the employer in advance of the disclosure.

At issue were two "irreconcilable" EEOC policies. The EEOC's Compliance Manual allowed the EEOC to disclose confidential information to plaintiffs or other third parties without notifying the submitter in advance of the disclosure. By contrast, the EEOC's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) prohibited the EEOC from disclosing confidential information to third parties without notifying the submitter before the disclosure.

The Court held as follows:

[W]e remand this case to the district court to enjoin the Commission from disclosing Venetian’s confidential information without adhering to the notice and other requirements of the agency’s regulations implementing the FOIA. The EEOC's policy of permitting disclosure of confidential information without notifying the submitter is "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because the discloser without notification policy is inconsistent with the EEOC's own policies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which require notification to a submitter before any confidential or other information is disclosed. If and when the EEOC provides an adequate justification for the conflict between its policies, the injunction may be dissolved.

The practical upshot is that unless the EEOC provides a coherent rationale reconciling its inconsistent pre-disclosure notification policies, the EEOC must notify the employer in this case before disclosing the employer's confidential information. Going forward, in cases where the EEOC cannot provide a coherent rationale to deviate from the pre-disclosure notification requirements in its FOIA regulations, this decision provides support for the argument that an employer (or other submitter of confidential information to the EEOC) must be notified before the EEOC releases such information to a plaintiff or other third party.

From the perspective of this writer, who represents employers before the EEOC and has handled FOIA matters involving various federal agencies, this outcome seems fair and balanced.

Bookmark and Share