DC Federal Court Rejects Employee Challenge to Arbitration Agreement

Friday, April 26, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

An employee who claimed an agreement he entered to arbitrate all employment related claims was unconscionable has his challenged rejected as the Court found the arbitration agreement to be neither procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

In the case of Fox v. Computer World Services Corp., et al. (2013), when Plaintiff Phillip Fox (“Fox”) began his employment with Computer World Services Corp. and C2 Essential, Inc. (joint employers of Fox and collectively referred to as “Defendants”) he electronically signed a number of forms, one of which was an arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement provided that the parties agreed to arbitrate, inter alia, any claims alleging violation of federal and state statutes.  Approximately eighteen months after he began working for Defendants, Fox’ employment was terminated.  Fox alleged that his job termination was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and also alleged retaliation and violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.  Fox refused to arbitrate his claims and instead sued Defendants in state court.  Defendants removed the case to federal court and also filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.    

For his part, Fox challenged the arbitration agreement and claimed it was procedurally unconscionable because it was buried within a larger series of employment documents; it was presented to him on a take it or leave it basis; and, he did not understand that by acknowledging the arbitration agreement he was agreeing to the terms within the agreement.  Fox also challenged the agreement because he signed it electronically.  The Court rejected each of these arguments and found that the Agreement to Arbitrate was presented in a separate document and the title of the document was in all caps and in bold font.  In addition, the Court found that immediately before the signature line of the agreement was an acknowledgement, again in all caps, which stated that the signatory read and understood the terms of the agreement and was been provided the opportunity to discuss the agreement with legal counsel.  Finding that Fox had a choice as to whether to enter the agreement, acknowledged that he read and understood the agreement and was given a chance to consult legal counsel, the Court found the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. 

Fox also raised a number of substantive challenges to the arbitration agreement, including challenging the agreement on the grounds that it contained a fee-sharing provision wherein all parties were required to share the fees and costs of the arbitrator in an amount and manner determined by the arbitrator.  While the Court easily disposed of most of Fox’ substantive challenges to the arbitration agreement, the fee- sharing issue raised by Fox and whether forcing him to go through arbitration would be prohibitively expensive was not so easily resolved.  Ultimately, the Court found that the risk that Fox might incur prohibitive costs was too speculative to invalidate the agreement.  The Court relied on the fact that Defendants had waived the fee-sharing provision in the agreement, and that the agreement (although somewhat ambiguous) appeared to allow the arbitrator discretion as to how to allocate fees and costs. Therefore, Fox’ argument as to what portion of those fees he would have to bear were too speculative to deem the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable.  The Court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and compelled Fox to arbitrate his claims.

Written By Malik K. Cutlar 

Maryland Highest Court Determines Proper Calculation of Lost Profits in Contract Case

Thursday, April 25, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

Since the amount of damages sought on a lost profits claim can be substantial, any variations in the standard will likely have a drastic impact on the recovery.  The Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) in CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC recently addressed the issue of whether the trial court properly excluded post-breach market conditions to mitigate consequential lost profits in a jury trial which resulted in an award of $36 Million in damages. 

The landlord defendants in CR-RSC Tower I, LLC deliberately breached a real estate agreement causing plaintiff developer’s financing to fall through.  The developer sued for breach of contract and sought recovery of lost profits basing its market projections at the time of the breach.  The landlords did not dispute the breach, but countered that the current market conditions were relevant and necessary to meet the requirement that lost profits be proven with “reasonable certainty.” The landlords sought to offer the testimony of an expert to show that the developer would not have suffered any damages given the subsequent downturn in the real estate market. 

The Court explained that the contract in this case did not address or allocate the possibility of future market downturns.  The only evidence established that, at the time the parties entered into the agreement, the parties contemplated a relatively stable market and did not foresee the cataclysmic crash of real estate.  Thus, evidence of post-breach booms or even busts was not relevant to the determination of the expected value of performance as of the time of breach.  As a result, the Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the defendants’ evidence of “post-breach market conditions.” 

Written By Angela H. France

Fourth Circuit Substantially Reduces Jurys Emotional Damages Award

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

Please see, Angela France's article featured within Virginia Business Law Update.


Written By Angela H. France 

US Citizenship and Immigration Services Releases New & Revised Federal I-9 Form

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

Please see, Angela France's article featured within Virginia Business Law Update.

http://www.virginiabusinesslawupdate.com/2013/04/articles/small-business-1/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-releases-new-revised-federal-i9-form/

Written By Angela H. France 

Government Contractor Teaming Agreement Ruled Unenforceable

Monday, April 22, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

Please see, Malik Cutlar's article featured within Virginia Business Law Update.

Written By Malik K. Cutlar

Use of Misappropriated Trade Secret Not Required For a Trade Secrets Act Violation

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

If an employee misappropriates their current or former employer’s proprietary information, and discloses such information to its new employer and/or any other unauthorized person(s), that is enough to establish a violation under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“VUTSA”) so says the Virginia Supreme Court. There is no requirement under the Act that the employee or new employer actually use the misappropriated information to compete with the former employer.

In the case of Geographic Services, Inc. v. Collelo, et al. (2012), the Virginia Supreme Court held that once an employer establishes the existence of a trade secret, all that they are then required to show is that the trade secret was misappropriated as that term is defined under the Trade Secrets Act. The entity from which the trade secret was misappropriated does not have to show that defendants used the trade secret in order to establish a claim under the VUTSA and recover damages. Disclosure of the trade secret is sufficient where it can be shown that the new employer and/or person to whom the trade secret was disclosed knew, or had reason to know, that the trade secret was acquired by improper means. In such cases, where the plaintiff cannot readily prove measurable damages, then the VUTSA provides that the court can impose a reasonable royalty upon the wrongdoers for the unauthorized disclosure of the trade secret.

This decision by Virginia’s highest court provides a cautionary note for Virginia employers: if you know, or should have known, that an employee has obtained proprietary information from its prior employer without its knowledge, you could be on the hook for damages if the employee discloses the information to your company – even if your company never uses the information. The disclosure, in and of itself, will be enough to expose companies to monetary damages. Conversely, companies in which an employee has taken proprietary information can seek legal redress and possibly obtain damages even if the employee and its new company did not use the information.

Written By Malik K. Cutlar

Trademark Licensing Agreement Foreclosed Naked Licensing Defense

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 by Team PCT Law Group

Please see, Angela France's article featured within Virginia Business Law Update.

http://www.virginiabusinesslawupdate.com/2013/04/articles/intellectual-property/trademark-licensing-agreement-foreclosed-naked-licensing-defense/

Written By Angela H. France 


PCT Law Group Blog

Court Dismisses Bid Protest Against the City of Harrisonburg

Friday, April 23, 2010 by PCT Law Group

A Virginia trial court recently dismissed a contractor’s bid protest against the City of Harrisonburg on jurisdictional grounds. In the case of General Excavation, Inc. v. City of Harrisonburg, the contractor’s bid was rejected along with all the other bids. Thus, the Court determined that there wasn’t any award for a bidder to challenge under the Virginia Public Procurement Act.

The bid by General Excavation, Inc. (GEI) for the road-improvement contract worth approximately $20 million was one of seven rejected by the City. After the City declined to award the contract to anyone, GEI filed suit pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act and the City’s own purchasing manual alleging that the City’s action was done solely to avoid awarding GEI the project.

However, the Court noted that the plain language of the Virginia Public Procurement Act allows contractors to bring an action in the appropriate circuit court challenging only a proposed award or the award of a contract – not the rejection of all bids.

Although the alleged conduct of the City appeared to be in violation of Virginia Code section 2.2-4319, which allows a public body to reject all bids but not solely to avoid awarding a contract to a particular bidder, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. It noted that the General Assembly created relief mechanisms for those aggrieved under the Public Procurement Act, and it would not enlarge the scope of those remedial statutes.

It should be noted that the City claimed that its decision had nothing to do with a desire not to award GEI the project.  Rather, the City official recommended the rejection of all bids based on the city, state and federal transportation representatives’ determination that the contract documents were probably not clearly understood by the bidders.  However, the Court's interpretation of the Virginia Public Procurement Act's jurisdiction eliminated the contractor's ability to receive a fair and impartial hearing on whether the City's actions were opportunistic and an unlawful rejection of all bids.   

Written by Angela France

EEO Guidelines for Small Businesses with Federal Contracts

Friday, April 09, 2010 by PCT Law Group

Small businesses with Federal contracts have to be especially mindful of ensuring compliance with equal employment opportunity (EEO) requirements. The failure to comply with the EEO guidelines set forth in Executive Order 11246 (which prohibits employment discrimination by Federal contractors and subcontractors as well as federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors) may very well result in the cancellation of a contract, termination, suspension (in whole or in part), or the debarment of the contractor. As the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)requires contractors to engage in their own internal EEO compliance analysis, small businesses often run afoul of satisfying their obligations under Executive Order 11246. 

To ensure compliance with the basic EEO requirements imposed by Executive Order 11246 -- and to avoid the wrath of the OFCCP – contractors should adhere to the following OFCCP guidelines:

Don’t Discriminate! Contractors must refrain from engaging in workplace employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Although most people think of intentional discriminatory acts, employment discrimination can also arise when a neutral policy or practice has an adverse impact on the members of any race, sex, or ethnic group.

Post an EEO Poster. Federal contractors must post OFCCP’s EEO poster in a location that is easily seen (e.g., a lunchroom, break room, or locker room).

Include an EEO Tag Line in Employment Advertising. Contractors should include a sentence in all solicitations and advertisements for employment stating that “all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

Keep Records. Contractors must maintain their personnel records and employment records including job descriptions, job postings, job offers, applications and resumes, interview notes, tests and test results, written employment policies and procedures, personnel files, and time-keeping records.

Develop and Maintain an Affirmative Action Program. Contractors with 50 or more employees and a contract of $50,000 or more must develop and maintain a compliant affirmative action program (AAP).

Small businesses with Federal contracts should regularly review their EEO policies and procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Executive Order 11246. Certainly, given the potential penalties, it is better to be safe than sorry!

Written by H. Scott Johnson, Jr.

Government Contracting Trends To Watch In 2010

Friday, February 12, 2010 by PCT Law Group

I recently read an interesting post on the ExecutiveBiz blog on the top 10 predictions for government contracting in 2010. Unlike the typical mundane prediction lists that clutter the blogosphere at the beginning of a new year, the predictions in this post consist of quotes from a who’s who of leaders in the government contracting industry. As Virginia (particularly Northern Virginia along the Dulles Technology Corridor) is home to many government contracting businesses, I thought it would be useful to provide a brief summary of a few predictions that caught my attention.

Industry will compete with government
Norm Augustine, the retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., predicts that “heightening fiscal pressures” on the procurement process will result in the government contracting industry finding itself “more and more a competitor with government” than a partner.

National security contracts will remain a focus
Paul Cofoni, the President and CEO of CACI, predicts that there will be “continued demand” for “proven solutions to keep our nation safe and implement efficient and cost-effective solutions to modernize federal agencies.” 

Collaboration between industry and government will remain strong
Renny DiPentima, the former President and CEO of SRA, predicts that the relationship between industry and government “will continue to be robust over the next decade” as “[g]overnment depends upon contractors in large part to get its jobs done and contractors depend upon government to keep their companies financially sound.”

Government will expect more secure offerings from industry
According to Melissa Hathaway, the President of Hathaway Global Strategies, LLC, the “seams between private networks and government networks will continue to blur” thereby requiring “industry and government to share details on vulnerabilities of and security threats to our infrastructures and information assets.” As such, she predicts that “the government will demand from industry more secure software products and services.”

New cyber czar will help industry challenges
Stan Sloane, President and CEO of SRA, predicts that a new cyber czar will lead to “some progress on the policy front, as well as collaboration with industry on intellectual property protection.” 

Modest growth and productivity gains for sector
Ralph Shrader, Chairman, CEO and President of Booz Allen Hamilton, predicts that “2010 will be a year of modest growth and productivity gains for the economy as a whole, and for the government contracting sector.” However, these gains will require industry and government to work together “toward the same goals.”

I concur with many of the predictions expressed by the leaders of the government contracting industry. Although fiscal pressures will continue to squeeze the procurement process in 2010, communication and collaboration amongst all segments of the government contracting industry can mitigate these economic challenges. While the continued demand for efficient measures to address national security concerns will help drive the sector, it will take a unified effort by government and industry alike to realize any gains in 2010.

Written by H. Scott Johnson, Jr.