Restrictive Covenants Archives - Page 11 of 12

Daughter’s Facebook Post Leads to Costly Breach by Father of a Confidentiality Clause in His Settlement Agreement With Former Employer

A recent decision by a Florida appeals court, Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, stands as a stark reminder of the perils of trying to maintain confidentiality in the age of social media where news can travel faster than the speed of sound and inadvertent dissemination of information that is intended to be “confidential” can be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent.

Patrick Snay sued his former employer, Gulliver Schools, for age discrimination and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act after his contract as the school’s headmaster was not renewed. The parties reached a settlement in the amount of $150,000 ($10,000 in back pay, $80,000 for non-wage damages, and $60,000 in attorney’s fees), and agreed that the “existence or terms” of the agreement were to be kept strictly confidential. The confidentiality provision prohibited Snay from “directly or indirectly” disclosing or discussing the case or the settlement with anyone except “his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse.” It contained a clawback or liquidated damages provision allowing for the disgorgement of plaintiff’s portion of the settlement payments in the event of a breach.

Only four days after the parties had signed the settlement agreement, the school notified Snay that he had materially breached the agreement based on a Facebook posting of Snay’s college-age daughter, who boasted to approximately 1200 Facebook friends (many of whom were either current or past Gulliver students): “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

Mr. Snay testified that he believed his daughter was retaliated against at Gulliver, that she was “very concerned about” the lawsuit, and that after the settlement was reached he and his wife decided to tell their daughter that the case had settled and that they were happy with the result. They apparently did not tell her that the settlement was confidential or that she should not disclose such information to anyone else. The trial court found that neither Snay’s comments to his daughter nor his daughter’s Facebook comment constituted a breach. The appeals court disagreed and reversed, ruling that Mr. Snay “violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do,” and “[h]is daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school.”

Confidentiality clauses like the one in the Snay/Gulliver settlement agreement are common and should be enforced when they are clear, unambiguous and voluntarily and knowingly agreed to. From a drafting standpoint, if it was important for Mr. Snay to have disclosed certain information about the settlement to his daughter (as he had claimed at his deposition), then the confidentiality provision could have included “immediate family” as permissible recipients of confidential information and have subjected those family members to the same confidentiality obligations as Mr. and Mrs. Snay.

In addition, attorneys should take heed of this opinion in light of their ethical and legal obligations to protect client confidences. The duty to protect privileged and confidential client information extends to current clients (RPC 1.6), former clients (RPC 1.9), and prospective clients (RPC 1.18). Zealous representation and confidentiality are at the foundation of the attorney-client relationship, but if an attorney’s spouse, family member, or co-worker, inadvertently or otherwise posts on social media client or case information that is confidential (e.g., “mom just settled big toxic tort case, off to Mexico for much needed family vacation!”), such disclosure could be disastrous.

Ten Considerations in Drafting Executive Employment Agreements

Perhaps your company has just acquired a new business and wants to put that entity’s employees under a more structured employment arrangement. Or maybe you are just looking to roll out new executive-level agreements within your own company. Whatever the motivation and circumstances, here are ten things to think about in drafting employment agreements that often go overlooked:

Severance – The most common question is the easiest: Are you going to provide severance and, if so, how much? Other details merit consideration though. For example, is death or disability a severance trigger? As part of the package, do you want to provide things like medical benefit continuation, prorated bonus, equity vesting acceleration, extension of the option exercise period, or other benefits? Whatever you do, the employer will want to make sure that the executive has to execute a release to receive the severance benefits, other than vested benefits and accrued compensation.
Fixed Term (or Not) – Traditionally, a term contract was like a baseball contract – the executive had a term and, except where the employer had good cause for an early termination, it had to pay the executive out through the end of the term no matter what. That concept seems to have largely disappeared, in that (a) employers don’t want to be saddled with paying out the full term if they elect to make a change earlier and (b) executives want severance even when the agreement expires naturally and is not renewed by the company. As a result, except where the employer can secure a true no obligation walk away at the end of the term, or at least establish some difference between an in-term and end-term separation, an employer would be wise to go with an at-will arrangement with no set term.
Restrictive Covenants (or Not) – Restrictive covenants, including covenants not to compete, require clearer, more definitive consideration than most contract terms. And aside from new employment, there is no better consideration than new or enhanced compensation and benefits memorialized in a formal employment agreement. So, if you think non-competition, customer non-solicitation, or other restrictive covenants are worthwhile (and you usually should at the executive level), the employment agreement (or a separate, contemporaneously-executed and cross-referenced restrictive covenant agreement) is the place to do it.
Cause – “Cause” means different things to different people. From an executive’s point of view, Cause is often engaging in particularly serious conduct that is not rectified after notice and an opportunity to cure. Employers, however, should seek to include things like the executive’s failure to perform his or her duties; violation of material company policies (such as anti-discrimination and harassment policies); commission of a felony or other serious crime; breach of his or her restrictive covenants, fiduciary duty, or other misconduct; and material misrepresentation of experience or education, among other things.
Good Reason Provision (or Not) – A “Good Reason” separation provision allows an executive to resign for certain preapproved reasons – typically the employer’s material breach of the employment agreement, a required relocation, or a material diminution of the executive’s duties, often after the employer has failed to cure – and collect severance as if he or she was fired without Cause. Most savvy executives have come to expect such a provision, and providing it to the executive can be a relatively easy give if the Good Reason provision is drafted correctly.
Award Equity (or Not) – Many executives, particularly when accepting a role in a new or newly-acquired company, understand that the cash compensation may be limited initially. What they really want is equity or options so that, if they succeed in developing the company, they can share in that success. Employers and equity firms often find this arrangement beneficial too in that it limits cash outlays and aligns incentives.
State Law and Venue Selection – Almost all employment agreements include a choice of law provision, and many, if not most, employers instinctively select the state in which the company operates and the executive will work. But that may not be the best law for the employer and other options may be available. For example, most courts will apply another state’s law if there is a nexus to that state, such as it being the employer’s state of incorporation. Venue is equally important, as requiring an employee to litigate in a certain forum can give the employer litigation location certainly and potentially avoid the executive running to another state where the law (for example, concerning non-competes) is more favorable.
Assignment – Often forgotten, the assignment provision is critical in that, without it, many states’ laws will not permit assignment, even upon a sale of the employer’s assets. To avoid this, the employment agreement should state that, although the executive may not assign the agreement, the employer may do so, at least to an affiliate or as part of a transaction.
409A – When possible, severance, other payments and the agreement generally should be structured so as not to trigger coverage under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. If the agreement is subject to Section 409A, it should be written to comply with it. Failure to do so can expose the executive, among other things, to a 20 percent additional tax and the employer to an angry executive.
Miscellaneous – There are of course numerous other things of value that an employer can do. For example:

● The salary section can allow for the reduction of the executive’s salary when executive salaries are being cut across the board.

● The employer may want to make any bonuses contingent on the executive working through the end of the year.

● In most states, an employer can provide that accrued, unused vacation and PTO will not be paid out upon termination of employment.

● Arbitration, subject to a carve out for injunction actions, has its positives and negatives and should be considered.

● Address what is to happen upon a sale of the employer or other change of control.

● New executives should represent and warrant that they are not bound by any restrictive covenants that would limit their ability to work for the employer and that they will not use any confidential information from their former employer.

● Although largely standard now, employers should take care to ensure that the agreement provides that it can be revised only by written document.

● Make sure the agreement works with other documents and that the integration clause doesn’t unintentionally overwrite other agreements.

There are always more issues of course, particularly those specific to the particular company and the executive. But the ten-plus areas above arise frequently and thus typically merit consideration.

Hiring Employees Who May Be Bound by Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants? Caution, Restrictions May Apply

Employers frequently want to hire talented employees who are bound by post-employment restrictive covenants (e.g., non-competes, or customer/employee non-solicitation covenants). Often, a plain reading of the prospective hire’s agreement raises questions about whether joining your company would violate the agreement. This requires strategic, and sometimes creative, planning. Depending on your jurisdiction, deciding to hire an employee despite their post-employment restrictive covenants may involve taking a calculated risk that some parts of the post-employment restrictions are not enforceable, while deciding that there are some aspects your company can live with and that you expect the new employee to follow. The following provides some basic guidance.

1. Assess the business impact of the restrictions by determining the precise scope and duties of the prospective job. Even though the individual may be subject to post-employment restrictive covenants, the job for which you intend to hire him/her may not fall within the restrictions. Or, inasmuch as most restrictive covenants will expire — sometimes in a matter of months — you may decide that the company can tailor the scope of the intended position so that the new employee can still add value, but not perform work that would violate the individual’s obligations to his/her former employer. Can the person be employed in a capacity that does not violate the restrictions until they lapse? Can the person be employed outside the geographically restricted area or assigned to existing customers different from those of the former employer?

2. Review and analyze the legal risk. Analyze the true legal risk of proceeding. By “true” legal risk, I mean the likelihood that the former employer will succeed if it takes legal action, as well as the likelihood the former employer will actually take legal action. This should include an analysis of the scope of the restrictions and their enforceability given the applicable state law, whether the action will be brought in federal or state court, as well as an assessment of the likelihood that a court will enforce the restrictions. This will vary according to the applicable state law and circumstances. You should also consider more practical issues such as the former employer’s litigation history, the importance of the potential hire to the former employer, and the extent to which employment with your company differs from the prior employment. Other practical considerations should include a review of the industry and whether post-employment restrictions are commonplace, whether the two companies compete for the same customers, and a frank review of your company’s flexibility in defining the scope of the intended position.

3. Hire away, or don’t, but proceed with caution. Having analyzed the legal risk and business impact of the restrictive covenants on your proposed hire, determine whether you are comfortable proceeding with the hire in the intended position, or if there is a different, or modified position, that would still suit the company’s needs while lessening the legal risk. Analyze and take available appropriate steps to minimize the risk of being sued, or, if sued, the risk of a lengthy or costly suit. Communicate, in writing, what you expect of the new employee. For instance, you and counsel may reach the conclusion that the prospect’s non-competition restrictions are overly broad and will not be enforced under the circumstances, but that a court is likely to enforce a customer non-solicitation covenant. Accordingly, you may decide to move ahead with the hire, and plan to keep the new employee away from former customers.

Typically, the company’s offer letter is a good place to memorialize such expectations. In our scenario, the offer letter should state, as a condition of employment, that the new employee does not possess and/or will not use his former employer’s confidential information and that the employee will not solicit former clients (as well as any other restrictions that your company expects to be followed). The employee, especially if sophisticated or if represented by an attorney, may seek indemnification for any legal action taken by his former employer. Determine whether you are willing to entertain such a request. Consider also what type of an “out” you have, both of the employment relationship and/or indemnification, i.e., what recourse does the company have if ensuing litigation is going badly or you find the new employee was not truthful about not taking any confidential information from the former employer?

4. Protect your company from the beginning. Companies often get into trouble when recruiting a prospective employee long before the actual hire. Employees may pitch their importance by showing you their customer list or sales volume, but these items are likely to be considered confidential by their employer, if not trade secrets. Further, the employee may offer to bring with them a junior colleague and provide you with confidential information about the employee or may start contacting customers about his or her intentions. Those actions may have already violated the person’s restrictive covenants. Ground rules for such activity should be established during the interview process, in writing, if possible. Also obtain written confirmation that the potential hire is not under any undisclosed restrictions and communicate, in writing, that the prospective employee is not to disclose or use confidential information or trade secrets and is not to take or bring any property or information belonging to the employer. Follow through and make sure the person complies fully with those requirements.

Although there is no way to prevent a suspicious former employer from challenging your company’s hire of one of its employees, following this guidance will place your company in a better position in the event of such a challenge.

Forum Selection Clauses and Non-Compete Agreements

The Issue: You are a California employer with out-of-state headquarters, and your executive works and lives in California. Your employment agreement has a one-year post-termination non-compete. Can you enforce it?

The Solution: In general, no, but the answer may depend on whether you have a valid forum selection and choice of law clause that provides for resolution in a state that permits reasonable post-termination non-competes.

Analysis: In general, California employers cannot enforce post-termination non-competes and a party cannot circumvent California restrictions on non-competition with a choice of law provision designating a more non-compete friendly jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co.,
Inc. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 571 U.S. ___ (Dec. 3, 2013) held that contractual forum selection clauses should be enforced in all but the most exceptional cases, and therefore may be helpful to employers who seek to enforce non-competes against employees who work or live in states, like California, that disfavor restrictive covenants.

Indeed, some recent California federal district court cases have focused on whether the employment agreement has an out-of-state forum selection and choice of law clause. In Meras Engineering, Inc. v CH20, Inc., the Washington-based employer was permitted to enforce its Washington forum selection and choice of law clauses against its California sales associates who left for a California competitor. The Washington court concluded it was proper to apply Washington law as provided by the employment agreements. The California court dismissed the California employees’ lawsuit in favor of the Washington forum selection clause.

Similarly, in two other recent California district court cases, Plaintiffs were former California employees who signed employment agreements with restrictive covenants and Pennsylvania forum selection clauses. In both cases, the employees argued the cases should not be transferred because the more restrictive covenant friendly Pennsylvania courts would enforce the non-compete, which contravenes a strong California public policy. Both California courts however, focused on the reasonableness of the forum selection clause, rather than on the clauses’ effect. Both found that the possibility a Pennsylvania court might apply Pennsylvania law to the non-compete clause was not a sufficient basis to invalidate the forum selection clause.

In light of these recent cases, California employers should consider whether they have a reasonable and enforceable basis for selecting an alternative forum and choice of law for their executive agreements, and, in consultation with
counsel, draft carefully tailored restrictive covenants that comply with that state’s law.

Significant Illinois and Massachusetts Non-Compete Rulings

Two recent cases should give employers pause as to whether their restrictive covenants with their at-will employees are enforceable. On May 28, 2013, a United States District Court in Massachusetts held that under Massachusetts law, a confidentiality agreement signed by an at-will employee was unenforceable where the employee’s title, duties, remuneration and other terms of employment had materially changed since signing the agreement. Then, on June 24, 2013, an Illinois Appellate Court held that unless an at-will employee is employed for at least two years, restrictive covenants the employee signed at the beginning of employment are unenforceable for lack of adequate consideration. Moreover, the Illinois court held it was irrelevant whether the employee quits or is terminated before two years of employment. While the rulings rely on the applicable state law, they address important points that may have broader application than only in Massachusetts and Illinois.

In Smartsource Computer & Audio Visual Rentals v. Robert March et al, D. Mass. (May 28, 2013), Smartsource filed an action to enforce its noncompete agreements with its former employee, March. March was hired by Smartsource in 2006 as a Senior Account Executive, and signed an offer letter with a simple confidentiality agreement/restriction. In 2007, March was promoted to Branch Sales Manager, in 2008 to Regional Sales Manager, in 2010 to Regional General Manager, and again in 2012 to Regional Sales Manager. With each change his job responsibilities and compensation changed. Citing to Massachusetts law, the court denied the requested injunctive relief to Smartsource. Although stopping short of a definitive ruling on the merits, the court noted that “it may well be under [Massachusetts case authority], March’s 2006 confidentiality agreement has been abrogated, and he is not bound by any restrictive covenants.” March and the Massachusetts cases cited therein suggests that when material changes to an employment relationship are contemplated, the employer should consider revisiting the existing restrictive covenant agreement and consider whether a new agreement is advisable.

More recently, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District (Cook County) in Eric D. Fiefield et al v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. June 24, 2013), answered the question as yet definitively unanswered in Illinois: What additional employment period after the signing of a restrictive covenant agreement is sufficient consideration to make the agreement enforceable against an at-will employee? The Court answered at least two years, even where the employee signs the restrictive covenant at the outset of employment. Fiefield had worked for the predecessor company that was acquired by Premier. Fiefield was then hired by Premier in late October 2009, and as a condition of employment Fiefield was required to and did sign an employment agreement containing a two-year restrictive covenant. Fiefield signed the agreement on October 30, 2009 and started work on November 1, 2009. On February 12, 2010, Fifield resigned to go to work for a competitor. Fiefield and his new employer then filed suit against Premier seeking a declaratory judgment that the restrictive covenant agreement was unenforceable. The circuit court ruled the agreement was not enforceable because it lacked consideration. Premier appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed, agreeing that there was inadequate consideration. The court held that regardless of whether Fiefield had signed the agreement before he started work or after he started work, “Illinois courts have repeatedly held there must be at least two years or more of continuous employment to constitute adequate consideration in support of a restrictive covenant…This rule is maintained even if the employee resigns on his own instead of being terminated.”

The Premier decision will surely send employers in Illinois scrambling to reconsider the validity of their at-will employee restrictive covenant agreements in Illinois. However, help may be on the way as Premier has filed a petition for leave to appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. Granting review is within the Court’s discretion, and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and other employer groups are backing Premier’s bid. Even if the case is not reviewed or reversed, however, there are a number of possible solutions to the Premier consideration problem. These include offering employees consideration for the non-compete in addition to simply offering at-will employment (such as a “bonus” payment or possibly elaborating on the consideration offered to include, for example, training, access to customers and valuable confidential information and trade secrets) or offering employees some form of term employment contract.

If you have at-will employees with restrictive covenants less than two years old, and you view confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements important to your business, or if your agreements with your employees significantly predate their current job positions, compensation and other conditions, these cases should sound the alarm to review your competitive advantage protections.

Former Executive’s Race to California Hits a Roadblock in New York

Like many things in life, there is a perceived formula for success in non-compete cases: If you are the former employee or his or her new or would-be new employer, conventional wisdom dictates that you identify the restrictions early and consider filing a preemptive declaratory judgment action in a state that is hostile to such agreements (provided the facts permit). California is the most well-known example, but there are others. The plan works best if the former employee lives in California (or similarly hostile state) or has other significant connections by virtue of his past or intended future employment. But now, a New York appellate court has thrown conventional wisdom a curve.

Michael Cusack and Peter Arkley were former Aon executives. They left Aon on June 13, 2011 to pursue lucrative opportunities with a competitor, Alliant Insurance Services. The same day, 38 other Aon employees also left, and 22 more followed shortly thereafter. Aon’s clients came too, with over $20 million in client revenue allegedly flowing from Aon to Alliant.

Arkley and Cusak, along with Alliant, following the familiar formula, filed for a declaratory judgment to invalidate their restrictive covenant agreements in California federal court on the same day they resigned. Arkley’s chances of success in California seemed particularly good because, although his employment agreement was governed by Illinois law, he both lived and worked in California, and he planned to continue to do so with Alliant.

Aon responded by filing suits in Illinois and New York state courts, and found success in New York in particular. The New York trial judge, undeterred by the action in California and Arkley’s California connections, enjoined him soliciting business from, and entering into any business relationship with, any of Aon’s clients whom he either procured or whose accounts he worked on in the 24 months prior to his departure. She also enjoined him from soliciting any Aon employees to work for Alliant.

In January, a New York appellate court affirmed. The court rejected Arkley’s calls to defer to the first-filed California action, calling it “a preemptive measure undertaken to gain a tactical advantage so as to negate the force and effect of the restrictive covenants, which the parties had freely agreed upon.” The New York court seized upon the fact that the parties’ agreement had selected Illinois law to govern and held that Illinois law provided for enforcement.

Although the outcome was arguably an unusual one insofar as a New York court entered an injunction against someone who lived and worked in California and intended to do so in his new employment, so too were the facts involved, on many levels. First, the conduct at issue was particularly egregious in that it involved, among other things, former employees allegedly taking the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of printed pages of documents, including highly-sensitive documents; a coordinated departure strategy that included filing a declaratory judgment action in California within an hour of the key executives’ resignations; a mass exodus of both employees and clients; and alleged violations of an earlier-issued temporary restraining order. Second, the executives involved were high-level employees, who received seven-figure compensation from Aon, at least in part in consideration of the very restrictions they sought to avoid. Third, the restrictive covenants at issue were not blanket non-competes, but rather restricted the executives from disclosing confidential information, from calling on the customers that they serviced for Aon, and from soliciting other Aon employees for employment. In different circumstances, involving lower-level employees, who are alleged to have engaged in less egregious conduct and/or who are subject to broader restrictive covenants, the former employer may not fare as well.

Still, the takeaways are unmistakable. First, choice of law is critical, and an employer loses a tactical advantage when it fails to select a state law that, if not favorable to it, at least gives it a fair shot. Second, living and working in California is not the end all be all, and racing into a California court does not guarantee the former employee and his new employer freedom from the employee’s post-separation obligations. Solid facts and a solid agreement, presented in a jurisdiction that follows a more traditional approach to restrictive covenants, can still result in success for the former employer.