Strobos v. Rxbio, Inc.
251 F. Supp. 3d 221
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Strobos, a physician-attorney, was RxBio’s Vice President of Clinical Research from Oct 2011; his 2014 written employment agreement (backdated to 2011) set a $385,000 salary and required time logs for BARDA reimbursement.
- BARDA audited RxBio in 2014, withheld reimbursements, and then let an option expire; RxBio cut salaries and began paying Strobos $20,000/month while accruing unpaid salary/bonuses on its books.
- Strobos consulted two outside clinicians (his wife Dr. Nisha Chandra-Strobos and Dr. William Greenough) about a failed University of Maryland animal study; RxBio knew of and benefitted from those consultations.
- Strobos resigned July 17, 2015, and later sued seeking nearly $700,000 for unpaid expenses, accrued wages/bonuses, and severance; RxBio counterclaimed for breaches (failure to return property, failure to disclose subsequent employers, not devoting full time, and improper disclosure/trade-secret misappropriation).
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; the Court granted summary judgment for Strobos on RxBio’s claims for failure to return property and failure to notify subsequent employers, and on RxBio’s NDA/TUTSA-based claim; the Court denied summary judgment on: RxBio’s claim that Strobos failed to devote full time, Strobos’s claims for unpaid wages/bonuses and severance, and a remaining expense offset dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strobos) | Defendant's Argument (RxBio) | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RxBio proved damages from Strobos’ delayed return of property or failure to disclose subsequent employers | Strobos says any retained records were for litigation and no damages resulted | RxBio asserts breaches but adduces no evidence of actual damages | Court: Summary judgment for Strobos (RxBio failed to prove damages) | |
| Whether Strobos breached duty to devote "full time and attention" | Strobos says he consistently worked full-time and billed BARDA accordingly | RxBio cites declarations that Strobos admitted reduced availability late in tenure | Court: Genuine dispute of material fact — summary judgment denied for both on this claim | |
| Whether Strobos breached confidentiality clause or misappropriated trade secrets (contract and TUTSA) by consulting outside clinicians without NDAs | Strobos contends consultations were within his job duties and RxBio implicitly consented; no evidence of resulting harm | RxBio argues disclosure to outsiders without NDAs violated contract and TUTSA | Court: Summary judgment for Strobos — consultations were within scope of duties, RxBio implicitly consented, and no damages shown under TUTSA or contract claim | |
| Whether RxBio breached contract by withholding accrued salary/bonuses and whether D.C. Wage Act applies | Strobos argues deferred payments were never a binding amendment; alternatively, D.C. law mandates monthly payment | Strobos also argues partial funding release made wages due | RxBio says parties orally agreed to defer payment until replacement funding obtained; many wages predate D.C. law amendment and Strobos was an exempt executive | Court: Material factual dispute over the oral agreement’s condition precedent and whether D.C. law applies to portions; summary judgment denied for both on wages/bonuses |
| Whether Strobos is entitled to severance for resignation for Good Reason | Strobos alleges material reduction in duties (reassigned supervisory tasks) triggered severance | RxBio says duties were never so broad and treated resignation as voluntary; denies severance owed | Court: Disputed facts about duties and reason for resignation — summary judgment denied for both | |
| Whether Strobos is entitled to reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses | Strobos shows $16,288.89 unpaid and RxBio conceded reimbursement subject to offset | RxBio asserts an offset right against potential counterclaims | Court: Summary judgment for Strobos on unpaid expenses (no current debt proven to permit offset) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; materiality and genuine dispute principles)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (assessment of genuine factual disputes at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must show evidence permitting a jury to find for it)
- Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 (courts must not make credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141 (insufficiently probative evidence cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Baptist Mem’l Hosp.-Golden Triangle v. Leavitt, 536 F. Supp. 2d 25 (failure to respond to an opposing summary-judgment argument may constitute concession)