state in more than a random, fortuitous, or attenuated way.” ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 625 (4th Cir.1997); see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). In essence, a defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state, and a court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. C. While the fact that Aboud’s contacts with Virginia were made on behalf of MBT complicates the traditional due process inquiry, her connection to the Commonwealth is sufficient to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. In the typical case, the contacts of a company are not attributed to a corporate agent for jurisdictional purposes. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (<HOLDING>). On the other -hand, Aboud is not immune from
holding that rule 42 did not apply to ex parte contacts with former employees of represented party holding that employees contacts with theforum are not to be judged according to their employers activities there holding that atwill employees have no contractual relationship with their employers to support a cause of action under section 1981 holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof