Briefings

Cameron/McEvoy PLLC Wins Reversal in Virginia Supreme Court Case Involving Scope of Arbitration Clause

Cameron/McEvoy PLLC attorney Edward “Sunny” Cameron successfully argued a case before the Virginia Supreme Court that involved the interpretation of an arbitration clause in the governing documents for a Northern Virginia property owners’ association.

The case, Worman v. River Creek Owners Association, arose out of dispute between homeowners and their homeowners’ association over certain planned construction on the homeowner’s property. The homeowners’ applications were either denied or not acted upon by the association, so the homeowners submitted a demand for arbitration with the AAA pursuant to the recorded declaration for the community. The arbitrator ultimately found in favor of the homeowners, but the association moved the Circuit Court of Loudon County to vacate the arbitration award, which the Circuit Court did based upon its conclusion that the scope of the arbitration did not cover the instant dispute.

The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment opining that the arbitration clause was applicable. The Association sought a rehearing which was summarily denied.

Cameron/McEvoy obtains dismissal on behalf of its client in federal age discrimination case

Cameron/McEvoy PLLC lawyers, led by Edward "Sunny" Cameron, defended Guident Technologies against a lawsuit brought by a former Guident employee alleging age discrimination and breach of contract, and obtained dismissals on all counts. The plaintiff, a 49 year old former salesman, alleged that Guident terminated him based on his age and was replaced with younger salesmen who were under the age of 40, and that Guident breached various employment contracts by failing to pay post-termination commissions and stock options.

Cameron/McEvoy successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") because, as plaintiff admitted in an affidavit, he had no information regarding the age of his replacement or if the position remained open, a critical element of an ADEA claim. As to the other counts relating to the plaintiff’s stock options and commissions, Cameron/McEvoy successfully argued that plaintiff was not entitled to post-termination options or commissions based on the plain language of the contracts.

Judge Liam O'Grady of the Eastern District of Virginia ultimately dismissed the ADEA claim and all other claims with prejudice.