Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Omniplex World Services Corp. v. U.S. Investigation Services, Inc.

Virginia Supreme Court
270 Va. 246 (2005)


In August 2003, employment agency Omniplex World Services Corporation (plaintiff) won a bid to provide staffing services for a sensitive government customer (SGC) on a project known as Project Eagle. To be staffed on the project, potential employees needed a top secret security clearance. Kathleen Schaffer was already working on Project Eagle as an employee of another staffing company when Omniplex won the staffing bid. When Schaffer learned that her current employer no longer had the Project Eagle staffing contract, she sent applications to other staffing agencies, including The Smith Corporation. Before Schaffer received a response from Smith, Omniplex offered Schaffer the opportunity to continue working on Project Eagle as an Omniplex employee. Schaffer accepted the offer and signed a one-year employment contract with Omniplex. The contract contained a noncompetition provision, which stated in part that if Schaffer’s employment with Omniplex terminated before the end of the employment term, Schaffer could not work for any other employer in a position supporting the SGC if that employment required Schaffer to have the same security clearance as required for her employment through Omniplex. Schaffer subsequently began working for Omniplex in a security-support position at the SGC’s general headquarters. However, roughly two months later, Smith contacted Schaffer and offered her a higher-paid position as an administrative assistant for the SGC. Schaffer accepted Smith’s offer and resigned from Omniplex. Omniplex filed a motion for judgment in Virginia state court against Smith’s parent company, U.S. Investigation Services, Inc. (defendant), based on Schaffer’s alleged breach of her employment contract. The trial court found that the noncompetition provision in Schaffer’s employment contract was overly broad and dismissed Omniplex’s motion for judgment. Omniplex appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Lacy, J.)

Dissent (Agee, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial