Smooth Transitions Law Blog
Addressing the legal issues arising from the departure of employees & business breakups

Non-Compete Agreements

Coaches & Non-Competes
October 13, 2010

                                       

College football is big money.  Not surprisingly, football programs that pay millions of dollars to their coaches would like to keep them  from moving to other schools.  For instance, Arkansas coach Bobby Petrino has a contract that prevents him from going to another school within the Southeastern Conference’s western division.  But, programs also want to tie down assistant coaches.

Programs on the rise or established programs generally have a bevy of up and coming assistant coaches.  Texas defensive coordinator Will Muschamp is a star coordinator.  Head Coach Mack Brown anointed Muschamp his eventual successor.  Of course Mack has not told anyone when he plans to step down.

Muschamp is a University of Georgia graduate and former player.  Georgia coach Mark Richt has had a terrible season.  Rumors are abound that Georgia may target Muschamp as a replacement. 

Texas defensive coordinator Will Muschamp

Could Texas craft a non-compete agreement that would prevent Muschamp from leaving?  Probably not.  To begin with, Texas would have to draft a clause that prevents Muschamp from going to Georgia.  Would that be reasonable in scope?  Keeping a coach from going to work for a conference competitor is one thing, but preventing him going to a school Texas rarely plays is another.   

The bigger question is could a non-compete be crafted under Texas law for a football coach that is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement?  Non-competes are typically used to protect trade secrets and other proprietary information.  There aren’t really any secrets when it comes to coaching.  As a result, it would seem unlikely that a court would find an interest worth protecting vis-à-vis a non-compete.

So it seems unlikely that Texas could enforce a non-compete against Muschamp.  But, other states have more relaxed non-compete laws that might permit the enforcement of such a provision.  Especially, if the Judge happens to be an alum from that particular school – just kidding.

Read More
No Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

Top 5 Defenses to Non-Competes
October 7, 2010

                    

 

It is always nice to get a different perspective on non-compete agreements, especially from the employee’s side.  Florida employment lawyer Donna Hallman provides her top five ways to get out of a non-compete agreement in a recent article.  They include:

1.    The employer breaches the contract;

2.    There is no legitimate interest to enforce;

3.    Your agreement is for too long of a time period;

4.    The so called “confidential information” is readily available to the public; and

5.    Public health and safety would not be served. 

It’s interesting how employers and lawyers attempt to carve out non-compete agreements that address many of the defenses alleged set forth by Donna.  With respect to number 1, "an employer breaches the contract", clauses are frequently drafted where a breach by the employer is  identified as a basis not to disallow the non-compete provision. Whether such a clause works depends on the breach.

As to number 3, "the agreement is for too long a time period", Texas courts are permitted to shorten the non-compete term and make the agreement enforceable. 

Numbers 2 and 4 seem to always be the best defenses now.  Basically the claim is that what gives rise to the non-compete is not protectable.  To put it another way, I didn’t give you any information, training, or other propriety information that would give rise to the necessity for a non-compete in the first place.  The agreements have become easier to enforce in Texas, and this has become one of the last remaining defenses to non-compete agreements

Here are a few more for the list:

6.    Don’t sign the non-compete in the first place (Duh);

7.    If you are going to sign a non-compete, make sure it’s in a jurisdiction where it’s very difficult to enforce like California; and

8.    Include a buy-out provision in your non-compete so you can get buy your way out of enforcement.

 

 

 

Read More
No Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

M.D. Non-Competes in Texas
September 29, 2010

As discussed here previously, Texas non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are alive and well and the Texas Supreme Court has made them easier to enforce. Doctors are frequently the targets of non-competes and they are legal in the state of Texas. 

The Texas Legislature has gone out of its way to set forth provisions necessary to make a non-compete enforceable against a doctor in  Section 15.50 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. The highlights:

Patient Records/Care:  The non-compete must: (1) not deny the physician access to a list of his/her patients upon departure;  (2) provide the physician access to their patients’ medical records when authorized by the patient; and (3) the physician must not be prevented from providing treatment to an acutely ill patient.

Buy-Out Provision: The statute also requires that the non-compete provide for a buy-out of the non-compete at a reasonable price or as determined by a mutually agreed arbitrator or one chosen by the court. 

 

In sum – read the statute to make sure your non-compete complies with the statute, don’t play games with patient records or care, and provide a buy-out provision.

Read More
No Comment

Doctors  / Non-Compete Agreements

Game, Set, Match: Hurd and HP settle.
September 21, 2010

                                  

 

Mark Hurd and HP settled their lawsuit yesterday. Hurd will return restricted stock to HP (worth approximately $13.6 million) and continue to work for Oracle. What can we learn from the Hurd/HP affair?

 

  • HP’s suit against Hurd was fraught with legal questions.  Chiefly, was the Hurd non-compete enforceable under California law?  Nevertheless HP could not wait to file suit and needed some type of resolution. Was this perhaps a message for future employees or executives? Bottom line, it could not sit on its hands and do nothing.
  • Mark Hurd bought his way out of his non-compete. As we have discussed here before, employees considering a move can always negotiate with their employer to provide some type of consideration – $13 million in stock options – to get out of the non-compete. Hurd’s compensation package from Oracle probably makes up for this loss so don’t’ feel too sorry for him.
  • The fact that HP did not immediately seek a temporary restraining order to prevent Hurd from working for Oracle probably indicated that HP was concerned about the strength of its case. If I had to guess, I would assume the lawyers were concerned that they could not meet their burden under California law, which does not look favorably upon non-competes.
  • Hurd could have sued first and sought to declare the non-compete unenforceable. Instead he chose to wait. It appears he played it right. There was no TRO that prevented him from working. Yes, Hurd had to give up restricted stock but some payment was probably in his calculus to make the move to Oracle.  It would be interesting to know if Oracle indemnified Hurd for the lawsuit brought by HP and will end up paying him for the stock he gave up anyway. 

Well played Mr. Hurd.  From HP’s perspective, at least it got its stock back.

 

Read More
No Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

Employers in the Crosshairs
August 31, 2010

                                      

As discusssed here before, a former employee with an non-compete agreement usually has two choices in terms of challenging a non-compete.  The first is to "compete" and then see what the former employer does.  This could mean a lawsuit with an application for a temporary restraining order that puts the former employee out of work.  The wait-and-see approach essentially removes the employee from any control until the former employer decides to act.  This is the most common and cheapest approach.

The second approach is to sue the employer and challenge the validity of the non-compete.  The reality is most former employees simply don’t have the money to fund such an endeavor.  In a recent lawsuit in the Houston area, a group of doctors filed suit against the Sadler Clinic.  Those doctors are challenging the enforceability of a non-compete agreement that prohibits them from practicing medicine within a 22-mile radius of Sadler’s Conroe, Texas location.  Interestingly, the employment agreements contain a buyout provision that would relieve the doctors of their non-compete allegations.

This is not the first suit involving a Sadler non-compete.  Sadler filed a lawsuit against a departing physician in August 2009.  Apparently, the doctors are seeking to intervene or join in this lawsuit since the same non-compete is at issue.

 

Read More
No Comment

Doctors  / Non-Compete Agreements

The LinkedIn Lawsuit – Follow Up
July 27, 2010

                                              

A few months ago I profiled a non-compete/non-solicit lawsuit where the Plaintiff employer used LinkedIn communications as evidence to support their claims against several former employee recruiters.  The case was covered in a number of media outlets and blogs.

In the interim the Defendants answered the lawsuit and filed a counterclaim.  Here’s what the counterclaim alleged:

  • Representatives of the employer told one employee that he could continue to work in the recruiting industry as long as he didn’t call on the Plaintiff’s customers;
  • The non-compete agreements are unenforceable; and
  • The Plaintiff is tortiously interfering with their new employment agreements.

In their answer, the Defendants allege that what the Plaintiff claims is confidential customer information was publicly disclosed through social media and is no longer protected:

Plaintiff’s claims that relate in anyway to customer and/or client information fail to the extent that Plaintiff, or its employees, have thrust said information into the public domain through the use of sites such as, LinkedIn and Facebook, and/or to
the extent Plaintiff encouraged its employees to place said information into the public domain.

The case is set for trial in August 2011.  We’ll keep you posted on any further developments.

Read More
1 Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

Cash for a Non-Compete – The Future of Texas?
May 12, 2010

                                       

 As has been widely commented on, the Texas Supreme Court will determine whether stock options can serve as the basis for an employee’s non-compete agreement.  The Dallas Court of Appeals, in Marsh USA v. Cook, ruled that options could not. 

A ruling that reverses the Dallas court could  have much wider ramifications:  What would the employment landscape look like if an employer could pay an employee to enter into a non-compete? Would employers like to require their sales force to enter into non-competes that would either: (1) guarantee continued employment; or (2) put a departing salesperson out of the market for a year?  Would an employee agree to an extra $10,000 signing bonus in exchange for signing a non-compete?

Texas courts do not like to analyze whether the "consideration" that forms the basis of a contract is sufficient, meaning the Court won’t review whether a business or person paid too much or too little for something.  Employers will always confront potential employees with different bargaining power.  A salesperson with a significant client base and track record of success may be able to demand a year of salary for a non-compete or not agree to enter into such an agreement.  The first year salesperson right out of college is in a little different position usually unable to demand anything. 

I’m not convinced the Texas Supreme Court will make the sweeping ruling some suggest, but if it does it could significantly alter employment relationships and the ability of employees to freely move from employer to employer.   How that would play out remains to be seen, but employers will certainly look to lock down employees with non-compete or non-solicitation agreements.

 

 

Read More
No Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

How to enforce a non-compete without a non-compete.
April 12, 2010

                                              

Last year there was discussion about the DOJ’s investigation of alleged improper hiring practices by companies like Google, Intel, IBM, and Apple.  Apparently, the DOJ has stepped up the investigation according to a Wall Street Journal article.  According to the article, the inquiry focuses on a pact amongst technology giants not to hire each other’s employees:

The inquiry is focused on whether companies, particularly in the technology sector, have agreed not to recruit each others’ employees in ways that violate antitrust law. Specifically, the probe is looking into whether the companies’ hiring practices are costing skilled computer engineers and other workers opportunities to change jobs for higher pay or better benefits.

Apparently, the DOJ is struggling with how to challenge the practice because it has antitrust ramifications and results in keeping wages down. 

What a great deal for the employer:  Prevent your employees from leaving and keep their salary down at the same time without having to worry about the enforceability of a non-compete agreement.  Most employers constantly have to worry about the departure of talented employees to their competitors for more money.  If the allegations are true, that concern has been eliminated in portions of tech world.

Read More
No Comment

Non-Compete Agreements

Caught Red Handed with LinkedIn
March 31, 2010

                                              

Minnesota based TEKsystems Inc. sued three former employees for violating non-compete and non-solicit agreements.  TEKSystems is in the technical recruiting business and it claims one of the former employees was contacting its contract employees.  The complaint alleges Defendant Brelyn Hammernik used LinkedIn to solicit these employees:

For example, Hammernik has communicated with at least 20 of TEKsystems’ Contract Employees using such electronic networking systems as “Linkedin.”  Hammernik has, at a minimum, “connected” with the following TEKsystems’ employees through “Linkedin" . . . In her contacts with Tom Peterson, Hammernick asked Peterson if he was “still looking for opportunities.” She then stated that she “would love to have [you] come visit my new office and hear about some of the stuff we are working on.”

Evidence doesn’t get much better then this LinkedIn email:

Linkedln

Tom Peterson has sent you a message.

Date: 12/08/2009

Subject: RE: Brelyn

 

Hi Brelyn,

Indeed I am still looking. I have time, though!

Lets get together. Where are you working these days? Your profile still has you working at TEK Systems. BTW – my email address is lipidfish@gmail.com if you would prefer the non-Linkedln route.

Tom

 

On 12/08/09 8:47 AM, Brelyn Hammernik wrote:

Tom—

Hey! Let me know if you are still looking for opportunities! I would love to have come visit my new office and hear about some of the stuff we are working on!

Let me know your thoughts!

Brelyn

Needless to say it will be very difficult for Hammernik to defend this type of conduct.  I’ve used emails in non-compete/non-solicit cases but never LinkedIn evidence.  As individuals migrate from company to company they routinely use LinkedIn and other social networking sites to update contacts on their whereabouts.  Usually, most updates don’t contain an outright solicitation like this. The moral of this story:  Employees – be smart about communications that are blatant solicitations.  Employers – watch former employees social networking activities once they have departed.

 

 

Read More
2 Comments

Non-Compete Agreements  / Non-Solicitation Agreements  / Placement Professionals

In Defense of Non-Competes – Make them Industry Specific
February 22, 2010

                                       

Jay Shepherd’s recent post on "Rethinking non-competes" in his Gruntled Employee Blog got me thinking.  His take was this:

But if [the employee] decide[s] eventually that it’s time to leave the nest, then they should be free to do so. Even if it means that they’re going to compete.

With one exception. They can’t take our stuff. And by stuff I mean two things: our secrets and our client relationships. If their old jobs required them to work with our secrets — our legitimate, protectable secrets, not stupid things like prospect lists — then they should not be allowed to take them to their new jobs. And if in their old jobs we paid them to develop and maintain customer relationships to the extent that they became the face of our company, then they should have to stay away from those relationships for a reasonable period of time. A year, say. 

Seems like a pragmatic approach and employers get to protect their trade secrets and customer relationships.  Courts don’t like enforcing non-competes that are simply punitive in nature, there has to be something real to protect and the law in Texas has evolved that way.

The optimal solution however is not one size fits all.  Instead, it should be industry specific. Non-compete agreements are not appropriate for every industry.  The industry need to take the initiative to work out employee transition agreements. I know, wishful thinking.  But it can be done. Broker Dealers have done so with The Protocol.  The industry knows what their  "special sauce" is and what truly needs protection.  The Protocol allows employees to move within the industry and take their clients.  This may not be appropriate in every industry.  But the point is the industry and the market, not lawyers or legislators, are in a better position to make the determination.  

 

 

Read More
1 Comment

Non-Compete Agreements



Weinstein Radcliff Pipkin is a litigation serving Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. We are experience in matters of construction law, surety, contracts, commercial litigation and labor & employment. We’re passionate about providing clients with trusted service and solutions to their legal needs.

Learn More

Contact Us

  • 8350 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1550
    Dallas, TX 75206
  • 214.865.6130 (phone)
  • 469.629.5300 (fax)
  • Email