Metz v. Bae Systems Technology Solutions and Services Inc.
979 F. Supp. 2d 26
D.D.C.2013Background
- Metz worked for BAE as VP of Maritime Programs until his layoff on Feb. 3, 2012 and signed a Waiver and Release Agreement containing a one-year non‑compete in exchange for severance benefits.
- The non‑compete prohibited Metz from working for BAE competitors and was effective immediately through Feb. 2013; Metz is a Virginia resident and BAE is Maryland‑based.
- Metz accepted a position at ALION (a past BAE collaborator) and began work May 14, 2012; his ALION employment was at‑will.
- BAE contacted ALION in late May/June 2012, demanded ALION fire Metz or have him resign, and threatened legal action; ALION subsequently terminated Metz on June 15, 2012.
- Metz sued in federal court (diversity) asserting tortious interference with contract (Count II), tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count III), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV); Counts II and V were withdrawn earlier.
- The court considered BAE’s motion to dismiss and granted it, dismissing Counts II–IV for failure to state viable claims under D.C. law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metz can sue for tortious interference with contract based on at‑will ALION employment | Metz contends circumstances made his at‑will job a contract entitling him to protection | BAE argues at‑will employment cannot support a tortious‑interference claim under D.C. precedent | Dismissed — at‑will employment cannot serve as the contract element for this claim under D.C. law (Count II) |
| Whether Metz may pursue tortious interference with prospective economic advantage based on at‑will employment | Metz argues he had a valid expectancy with ALION and BAE intentionally induced its termination | BAE argues D.C. would not recognize such a claim when expectancy rests on at‑will employment | Dismissed — D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling in McManus forecloses such a claim (Count III) |
| Whether BAE breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in enforcing the non‑compete | Metz asserts BAE enforced the non‑compete dishonestly, harming his employment prospects | BAE argues the only contract between parties is the Waiver/Settlement and Metz received severance rights; he alleges no impairment of those contract fruits | Dismissed — Metz failed to allege impairment of any contractual benefit under the Waiver and Settlement (Count IV) |
| Whether Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show BAE knew of and targeted any non‑at‑will contract or expectancy | Metz points to BAE’s communications to ALION and termination as evidence of improper interference | BAE contends Metz alleges no non‑at‑will contract or facts showing BAE knew of any protected expectancy beyond at‑will employment | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead facts establishing a protected contract/expectancy known to BAE |
Key Cases Cited
- McManus v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 748 A.2d 949 (D.C. 2000) (at‑will employment cannot form the basis for a tortious interference with contract or prospective advantage claim)
- Bible Way Church v. Beards, 680 A.2d 419 (D.C. 1996) (discussing limits on interference claims where employment is at‑will)
- Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pleading standards — assume facts in complaint true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits on conclusory allegations under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Onyeoziri v. Spivak, 44 A.3d 279 (D.C. 2012) (elements of tortious interference under D.C. law)
- Allworth v. Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194 (D.C. 2006) (recognition of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in D.C. contracts)
- Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121 (1998) (Supreme Court discussion recognizing third‑party interference harms in certain contexts)