Metz v. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc.
413 U.S. App. D.C. 275
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Metz was laid off by BAE and later hired by ALION; BAE threatened legal/economic retaliation claiming a one‑year non‑compete, and ALION then terminated Metz.
- Metz sued BAE in D.C. federal district court alleging tortious interference with his at‑will employment at ALION; diversity jurisdiction was invoked.
- The district court dismissed the tortious‑interference claim under D.C. law; Metz appealed but did not ask this Court to decide the merits.
- On appeal Metz requested that the D.C. Court of Appeals be certified to answer whether D.C. law recognizes a tortious‑interference claim against a third party who procured the discharge of an at‑will employee.
- The D.C. Circuit considered only whether to certify that question (not the underlying merits) and whether the question was genuinely uncertain or sufficiently important to warrant certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to certify to the D.C. Court of Appeals whether D.C. recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with at‑will employment by a third party former employer | Metz: D.C. law is unclear/conflicting; certification needed to decide dispositive issue | BAE: Existing D.C. precedent forecloses such claims; certification unnecessary | Denied — certification declined; appeal affirmed because Metz did not ask this Court to decide merits |
| Whether D.C. law is genuinely uncertain on whether at‑will employment can support a tortious‑interference claim against a third party | Metz: Some D.C. cases (Sorrells, CASCO, Little) leave the door open for an exception for third parties | BAE: Controlling D.C. Court of Appeals precedent (Futrell, McManus, Bible Way) establishes that at‑will employment cannot found a tortious‑interference claim | Court: Not genuinely uncertain — a discernible line of controlling D.C. authority rejects such claims; possibility of reversal by D.C. court insufficient for certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Futrell v. Dep’t of Labor Fed. Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793 (D.C. 2003) (at‑will employees lack contractual relation for tortious interference)
- McManus v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 748 A.2d 949 (D.C. 2000) (same rule regarding at‑will employment)
- Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ v. Beards, 680 A.2d 419 (D.C. 1996) (at‑will presumption defeats tortious‑interference claim)
- Sorrells v. Garfinckel’s, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285 (D.C. 1989) (supervisors are not parties to employment contract and may be liable for interference)
- CASCO Marina Dev., LLC v. D.C. Redev. Land Agency, 834 A.2d 77 (D.C. 2003) (discusses Sorrells and standards for interference)
- Little v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 91 A.3d 1020 (D.C. 2014) (cited McManus as controlling; did not adopt exception for at‑will third‑party interference)
- Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 999 F.2d 549 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (discusses standards for certification to D.C. Court of Appeals)
- Dial A Car, Inc. v. Transp., Inc., 132 F.3d 743 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (genuine uncertainty standard for certification)
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (possibility that D.C. Court of Appeals might create exception is insufficient for certification)