in the law. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) (defining agency as “the fiduciary relationship that arises when [a principal] manifests assent to [an agent] that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control”). Moreover, as discussed below, the Court concludes on the pleadings before it that there is no basis to hold IBM liable under theories of respondeat superior or vicari ous liability for the actions of the John Doe defendant, even if the attacks were actually carried out by an IBM employee or agent. Under District of Columbia law, an employer cannot be held liable for its employees’ intentional conduct solely on the basis of an employer-employee relationship. See Haddon v. United States, 68 F.3d 1420, 1424 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also Keys v. Wash.
holding that section 1220 provides an exclusive remedy for tort like actions against an insurer holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship holding that it is not enough that an employees job provides an opportunity to commit an intentional tort holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor