FEDERALDistrict Court, District of Columbia
2014

Aba, Inc. v. District of Columbia

40 F. Supp. 3d 153District Court, District of Columbia • Decided 2014Voided

HOLDING

The District of Columbia stopped paying home health care providers after alleging fraud, forcing them to continue working without pay. The court initially ruled the providers likely had a right to payment and issued a temporary order requiring the agency to pay them. However, the court ultimately denied the preliminary injunction because the providers couldn't prove the agency intended permanent termination rather than temporary suspension. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts are skeptical of claims that payment stops equal contract termination—you need clear evidence of intent to end the relationship, not just a payment interruption.

KEY FINDINGS

Pay-When-Paid

A temporary payment stop is not the same as contract termination in court's eyes—you must prove the other party intends to permanently end the relationship

Termination for Convenience

Continue performing work during payment disputes carefully; stopping work can hurt your legal position, but working without pay creates financial hardship

FULL COURT OPINION