In an update on our earlier post on the “Reverend” discrimination case, Andrews v. Virginia Union University, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the University’s motion for summary judgment as to almost all of Rev. Andrews’ claims, allowing them to proceed to trial. The Court’s memorandum opinion is here.
In Sutherland v. SOS International, Judge Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the employer’s pre-trial motion for summary judgment related to the employee’s overtime claims under the FLSA and discriminatory discharge claim under USERRA due to the existence of factual disputes. The denial of the employer’s pre-trial motion for summary judgment means that the case will proceed to a jury trial. The case highlights some of the issues that trip up employers when defending these types of claims.
A federal jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has awarded plaintiff Worldwide Network Services, LLC $15 million in a lawsuit against DynCorp International. The award included $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. DynCorp prevailed on one counterclaim, recovering $175,000. Press coverage of the verdict can be found here and here.
On April 15, 2008, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a motion to dismiss breach of contract claims relating to an employee noncompete and nonsolicitation agreement in Nortel Communications, Inc. v. Carl Lee-Llacer, No. 1:08cv127 (opinion here: nortec-comm-inc-v-lee-llacer). The court granted the motion because the provisions of the agreement at issue were not limited to the performance of the same work the employee had done for the company and because key terms were undefined. This opinion highlights the changing law regarding noncompete agreements in Virginia during recent years. Employers using such agreements in Virginia would be well advised to have them reviewed and updated for continued viability.
In George v. Commonwealth, Court of Appeals Virginia, Record No. 0332-06-4 (Jan. 15, 2008), the Virginia Court of Appeals found that an employer that withheld taxes from employee paychecks but did not pay the Commonwealth the withheld taxes was guilty of embezzlement.
The Virginia General Assembly has attempted to clean up what appeared to be a loophole to allow medical professionals to escape noncompete agreements based on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The bill was signed by the Governor on March 5, 2008.
A case from 2007 shows that the tort of negligent retention is alive and well in Virginia. That case — Crump v. Morris — resulted in a jury verdict of $3.1 million against the employer.
According to The VLW Blog, the Fairfax County Circuit Court has dismissed on remand the defamation claims of a former Raytheon executive who won one of the largest jury verdicts in Virginia in 2005.
In Moser v. MCC Outdoor LLC, No. 06-1960 (4th Cir. 12/5/2007), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s award of summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim. Despite the Court’s reputation as pro-employer, the Moser case shows that an employee plaintiff can get to a jury in the Fourth Circuit.
In KP v. Vienna Wolftrap Hotel, 1:07-cv-00625 (E.D.Va. 11/30/2007), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Cacheris, J.) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claim based on the statute of limitations.
In an opinion dated November 19, 2007, Andrews v. Virginia Union Univ., No. 3:07-cv-00447-REP (E.D.Va.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion to dismiss disparate treatment and failure to accommodate religious discrimination claims brought by a Baptist minister against Virginia Union University. Rev. Gwendolyn Andrews, a Baptist minister and former chair of VUU’s Department of Social Work filed a Title VII complaint against VUU after the University did not renew her appointment as Department Chair. The University’s decision allegedly came shortly after Andrews complained that a new University policy prohibited students and faculty from referring to her as “Reverend.”
Subscribe to our feed