Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer BlogLubin Austermuehle prosecutes and defends cases involving controversies over a covenant not to compete, or other restrictive covenants. Our Illinois restrictive covenant attorneys represent clients in active litigation over the validity and enforcement of these covenants, as well as helping to evaluate whether litigation may arise over such a contract. With more than 25 years of experience, we have handled these claims for businesses of every size, from large corporations to family-owned businesses, as well as individual employees. Based near Naperville, Aurora, Geneva, Lisle, Warrenville, Downers Grove, Wheaton, Wilmette, Evanston, Ill., and downtown Chicago, we represent clients throughout the state of Illinois, as well as in Indiana and Wisconsin. To learn more about how our Illinois covenant not to compete lawyers can help you, please do not hesitate to contact us through our Web site or call toll-free at 630-333-0333.
Articles Posted in Non-Compete Agreement / Covenant Not to Compete
Scope of Injunctions Enforcing Restrictive Employment Covenants Must Be Clear, Fourth District Decides
Our Illinois noncompete clause attorneys recently noted an important case addressing the standards for a preliminary injunction in Illinois lawsuits over covenants not to compete. In Lifetec, Inc. v. Edwards, No. 4-07-0300 (Ill. 4th Nov. 6, 2007), Lifetec sued former salesman Peter Edwards for breach of three restrictive covenants in his employment contract. It also sued his wife, Carol Edwards, and new employer, Patterson Medical Supply Inc., for tortious interference with the contract. Trial court granted Lifetec a preliminary injunction, and Edwards filed the instant appeal.
Lifetec sells medical devices and products. When Edwards began working there as a salesman, he signed a contract agreeing not to:
- Compete with Lifetec, or sell or lease the products he had been assigned during the last 18 months of his employment, or competing products, within the territory assigned to him in the last 18 months of his employment.
- Directly or indirectly solicit purchase or lease of the product or competing products within the same territory.
- Work as a distributor or sales representative for any manufacturer that was a client of Lifetec, or for a competitor that also handles the client’s products, within the last 12 months.
The restrictive covenant applied for 24 months after the employment agreement was terminated.
Edwards left Lifetec for Patterson, a larger competitor, after 10 years. According to the opinion, he knew the move could cause Lifetec to sue and gave Patterson a copy of the agreement, but Patterson said it would take care of him in any lawsuit. Several months later, he admitted to a former colleague that he was working for Patterson. Months later, Lifetec sued him for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. At an evidentiary hearing, evidence was introduced that Edwards had solicited Lifetec customers, but he said all Lifetec customers were also Patterson customers because the bulk of Patterson’s business was from national contracts. On the basis of the evidence at this hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction stopping Edwards from violating the contract.
Edwards appealed, asking only for a decision on whether there was enough evidence to support the granting of the injunction. The appeals court said there was. The question, the court wrote, was whether Edwards had used protectable confidential information gained at Lifetec for his own gain. Lifetec contended that its “open quotes” to buyers constituted protectable information, although not all open quotes necessarily resulted in sales. The court took it one step further, saying the way those quotes were calculated was the real confidential information, as the quotes themselves were not secret once submitted to customers. Edwards’ knowledge of the reasoning behind the bids could give Patterson an advantage in the competitive medical supply industry. The defendants’ arguments that Lifetec should have alleged that Edwards misappropriated its trade secrets also fail, the court wrote, since Lifetec is making no such claim. All of this is sufficient to raise fair questions of fact, the court said, so an injunction was proper until the merits of the case could be decided.
A special concurrence filed by Presiding Justice Robert Steigmann agreed with the outcome, but said the court was incorrect to use the “legitimate business interests” test. This test is three decades old, the justice wrote, but the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it and in fact failed to use it at all in its 2006 decision in Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Because of this, he wrote, the court should have stopped its analysis after finding that the time and territory restraints in the covenant were reasonable. The majority noted, however, that the parties made no argument on this basis.
First District Rules Plaintiff Not Entitled to Punitives in Noncompete Clause Lawsuit
An interesting case involving enforcement of an employment contract’s restrictive covenant was recently noted by our Illinois covenant not to compete attorneys. Cambridge Engineering Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., No. 1-06-0798 (Ill. 1st Dec. 7, 2007). The suit stems from an earlier lawsuit concluded in Missouri in 2001, in which Cambridge Engineering Inc. successfully sued former employee Gregory Degar and his new employer, Brucker Company (legally Mercury Partners 90 BI), to enforce a covenant not to compete signed by Degar. Cambridge then filed this suit against Brucker to recover punitive damages and attorney fees. Cambridge and Brucker compete in the residential and business heating market in the Midwest.
Degar worked at Cambridge as a sales representative starting in 1996, and signed a contract including noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. The contract restricted him from competing in any way with Cambridge, or soliciting its employees or customers, anywhere in the United States or Canada, for 24 months after leaving. He was terminated in 2001 and was hired by Brucker about a month later as an inside support person rather than a salesperson. Nonetheless, he admitted to using customer contacts developed at Cambridge. Cambridge sued Deger, but not Brucker, in St. Louis and was granted a permanent injunction enforcing the noncompete clause. (At that time, Brucker fired Degar.)
Cambridge then sued Brucker in Illinois for compensatory and punitive damages, for tortious interference with contract. The parties stipulated to limit compensatory damages to attorney fees but said nothing about the punitive damages. The trial court directed a verdict against Cambridge on punitive damages, saying Cambridge hadn’t proven that Brucker’s actions were so outrageous that punitive damages were appropriate. At trial, the president of Cambridge testified that the company believed the contract would prevent Degar from holding any job, even a janitorial position, with any competitor, including in areas where Cambridge does not do business. The jury found for Cambridge on compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, but Brucker successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the noncompetition clause was overly broad and unenforceable. Cambridge appealed both judgments against it.
The analysis by the First started by noting that the dispute centered around whether the covenant not to compete was unenforceable under Illinois law. Cambridge argued that the covenant was reasonable on both geographic and activity (despite testimony disputing this), and that the trial court improperly excluded testimony that would show this reasonableness. The court disagreed on all counts. The geographic scope was unreasonable, the court wrote, because it restricted Degar from taking a job with a competitor anywhere in Canada even though Cambridge only had a small amount of business in Canada. This restriction did nothing to protect Cambridge from competitors gaining unfair advantage at its expense, the court wrote. And the evidence Cambridge said was incorrectly excluded would not have changed the court’s decision. Thus, the scope of the covenant was indeed unreasonable.
It next examined the question of the activities prohibited by the noncompete clause, which turned on the interpretation of the contract. However, the court found that the plain language of the contract supports Brucker’s assertion that the contract was overly broad: that Degar may not “engage in any activity for or on behalf of Employer’s competitors,” a phrase that could theoretically bar Degar from taking a job filing papers for a competitor. Furthermore, testimony from Cambridge’s president at trial confirmed this interpretation; he “agreed with counsel’s contention that the St. Louis action was brought to prevent Degar from working for a competitor in any capacity.” Thus, the clause was overly broad and not reasonable, and the trial court’s decision on that issue was also correct.
Hardship to Former Employee Should Be Considered Outside Motion to Dismiss, First District Rules
A First District Court of Appeal ruling had an interesting lesson for our Chicago noncompete clause attorneys. In Baird and Warner Residential Sales Inc. v. Mazzone, No. 1-07-2179 (Aug. 15, 2008), the First ruled that a trial court needed more evidence in a dispute about a covenant not to compete before it could correctly grant a motion to dismiss. The case arose when Baird & Warner Residential Sales sued former employee Patricia Mazzone and her new employer, Midwest Realty Ventures (doing business as Prudential Preferred Properties). Both real estate companies have multiple branches and more than 1,000 employees in the Chicagoland area.
Mazzone was office manager for B&W’s Lincoln Park office for about 11 years before leaving for Prudential. During that time, she signed a contract that included a covenant not to solicit services from any B&W employees or independent contractors, or people who had left those jobs within the last six months, for up to a year after leaving. This contract contained a severability clause, and the “preface” to the contract specified that it applied “regarding the Lincoln Park office,” although the restrictive covenant referred to “Company.” In 2007, Mazzone resigned from her job and took another running Prudential’s Michigan Avenue office. About a month later, B&W sued for a temporary restraining order and injunction seeking to enforce the covenant and keep Mazzone and Prudential from soliciting B&W employees, alleging breach of contract by Mazzone, tortious interference with contract by Prudential, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage by both parties.
After an injunction and expedited discovery, defendants moved to dismiss because the covenant was overly broad, alleging that it would keep any Prudential employee from soliciting any B&W employee or contractor from any office. B&W contended that the preface restricted the covenant to the Lincoln Park office and affirmatively stated that it did not seek to enforce it beyond that office. In the alternative, they argued that the severability clause should allow that portion to be separated from the rest of the agreement. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, saying the contract’s plain language related to all of B&W’s offices. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.
The appeals court started its opinion by considering B&W’s claim that the nonsolicitation contract was not improper under the law. It noted that motions to dismiss are not necessarily appropriate in fact-intensive situations like this one, since the rules limit courts to consideration of facts in the complaint. It then turned to the controversy over whether the contract applied to all offices or just the Lincoln Park office and found that there was insufficient evidence. The record does not show enough evidence to determine whether the contract, as written, is overly broad and poses an undue hardship on Mazzone, the court wrote, or negative effects on the public from the restraint of trade. It also disagreed that enforcing the contract would “render Mazzone unemployable,” since she would be free to solicit employees of non-B&W brokers, even within the limited one-year period specified. Thus, the trial court should not have dismissed it without hearing more evidence, the court wrote. It reversed and remanded the case for more proceedings.
Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Enforcing Salesman’s Covenant Not to Compete
A recent decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal caught the eyes of our Illinois non-compete agreement attorneys because it created a split with other Courts of Appeal that only the Illinois Supreme Court can resolve. In September, the Fourth ruled that a trial court was correct to grant a preliminary injunction to a company suing over a covenant not to compete. Sunbelt Rentals Inc. v. Neil N. Ehlers III and Midwest Aerials & Equipment, Inc., No. 4-09-0290 (Ill. 4th Sept. 23, 2009). Sunbelt sued former sales employee Neil Ehlers and his new employer, Midwest, alleging Ehlers violated restrictive covenants when he took the new job, and Midwest tortiously interfered with the agreement when it hired him.
Sunbelt sells and rents industrial equipment for business and individual use. Ehlers was a salesman there responsible for maintaining a customer base and relationships. When he took the job in 2003, he signed a contract agreeing that he would not, for a year after leaving the job, provide services or solicit business from customers that had used Sunbelt in the preceding 12 months, or customers with whom he had had “contact, responsibility or access to confidential information.” It also forbade him from joining or starting a business “substantially similar” to Sunbelt’s. Both clauses were restricted to designated geographic areas. The contract specifically said Sunbelt would be entitled to an injunction against any breach or threatened breach of the restrictive covenants.
Ehlers quit at Sunbelt in January of 2009 to join Midwest, which rents and sells aerial platforms to construction and industry. Four days after Ehlers left, Sunbelt sent him and Midwest a “cease and desist” letter alleging that Ehlers had breached his agreement. The next month, Sunbelt sued for breach of the covenant and tortuous interference and asked for a preliminary injunction to keep Ehlers from working for Midwest. Finding that the time and geographic scope of the agreement was reasonable, the trial court granted the injunction. Ehlers and Midwest appealed, arguing that Sunbelt had not shown that it had a legitimate business interest test first set forth in Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc. v. Kolar, 28 Ill. App. 3d 671, 673, 329 N.E.2d 300, 301-02 (1975), and thus failed to follow precedent.
The Fourth District disagreed. It started by examining the question of whether the “legitimate business interests” test was valid under Illinois Supreme Court precedent, particularly the recent Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Although every Illinois appellate court has embraced the test, the Fourth District wrote, its analysis was flawed and the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it. In fact, in Mohanty and several other decisions, that court never actually used the test. Instead, the Fourth said, precedent says the validity of a covenant not to compete should be based only on time and territory restrictions in the contract.
The court next took up the argument by Ehlers that the restrictive covenant should be declared invalid because it is overly broad. Ehlers argued that the restrictions were so broad that he is precluded from working for any competitor in a Midwestern city, causing him undue hardship. The court interpreted the language of the contract differently; it said the restriction meant Ehlers could not work for a competitor within 50 miles of a branch of Sunbelt where Ehlers had worked, for a year after leaving. This is consistent with previous time-and-territory decisions on restrictive covenants, the court said. Thus, the contract was valid, meaning that the trial court’s decision to issue an injunction was not unreasonable.
Continued Employment for a Short Time Is Not Adequate Consideration for Post-Employment Restrictive Covenant, Appeals Court Decides
Lubin Austermuehle’s Illinois breach of contract litigation attorneys were pleased to see a split Illinois Third District Court of Appeal decision clarifying the circumstances under which a post-employment restrictive covenant is valid. The decision came in Brown & Brown v. Patrick Mudron, No. 03-CH-1363 (Ill. 3rd March 11, 2008), in which a Florida insurance company sued a former employee for breaching a restrictive covenant in her employment agreement.
Diane Gunderson, the employee, worked for a Joilet, Ill. company that was taken over by Brown & Brown. Brown asked Gunderson to sign a new employment agreement with them, and in fact, fired an employee who refused to do so. The agreement said Gunderson’s employment could be terminated any time for any reason and prohibited her from soliciting or servicing any of Brown’s employees for two years after ending her employment with the company. She signed the agreement, but resigned seven months later and went to work for a competitor. Brown sued, alleging that Gunderson had breached the restrictive covenant at her new job. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Gunderson because it couldn’t find any evidence that she had breached the covenant, and Brown appealed.
The majority started by disposing of a “choice of law” provision in the contract requiring all disputes to be resolved in Brown’s home state of Florida. Illinois law applies anyway, the court wrote, because Illinois has a greater interest in the case and moving it to Florida would be against Illinois public policy interests. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Pioneer Life Insurance Co. of Illinois , 209 Ill. App. 3d (1990).
Material Breach of Contract Invalidates Covenant Not to Compete, Illinois First District Rules
Our firm’s Illinois non-compete agreement litigation lawyers were pleased to note a ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that a doctor may not bring a lawsuit against his former business partner for breaching a non-compete agreement. Bisla v. Parvaiz, No. 1-07-1647 (Ill. 1st., Feb. 21, 2008), arose out of a soured employment arrangement between Dr. Virenda Bisla and Dr. Akhtar Parvaiz, both doctors in Chicago. Bisla hired Parvaiz as an employee in 1998, under an agreement specifying that Parvaiz would have the opportunity to become a 50% partner in Bisla’s medical company after three years, if he met certain criteria. It also specified that Bisla would provide medical insurance for Parvaiz and his family, and malpractice insurance in Indiana for Parvaiz.
Neither type of insurance was provided to Parvaiz, according to the First District. And when the three years in the agreement had passed, Bisla did not offer Parvaiz a 50% share of the company, as agreed. Instead, he offered Parvaiz a 45% share, spread over five years, and presented him with a new employment contract and stock purchase agreement. Bisla told Parvaiz that it was in his best interests to sign these papers, but Parvaiz refused because they did not comply with the original employment agreement. He continued working for Bisla’s company for the next five years, but believed that they were using an oral contract since the first employment contract had expired.
The next year, Bisla’s company was temporarily dissolved by the State of Illinois for nonpayment of a filing fee. Bisla did not tell Parvaiz about the dissolution, which automatically terminated their employment agreement. However, in 2005, Parvaiz began working for a competing medical company. When Bisla found out, he demanded a share of the proceeds, then fired Parvaiz and eventually brought a lawsuit seeking to stop him from competing. Parvaiz countered that he believed the agreement was over. The trial court agreed, finding that their agreement was invalid because the employment agreement was breached by both the temporary dissolution and Bisla’s refusal to make Parvaiz a partner. It denied the injunction Bisla sought against Parvaiz, and Bisla appealed.
Restrictive Covenant Does Not Apply to Shopping Center Lease, Fourth District Decides
As Chicago business trial attorneys with substantial experience in disputes involving shopping centers, our firm was interested to see a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal decision allowing a shopping center to go through with its lease despite a restrictive covenant in a land sale by its predecessor. In Regency Commercial Associates v. Lopax, 4-06-0332 (May 4, 2007), the appeals court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the business at issue was not covered by the covenant, and that starting the lease while the case was still pending did not bar it from requesting a declaratory judgment.
Regency Commercial Associates, LLC and Lopax, Inc. are companies that own neighboring parcels of land in Savoy, Ill. The prior owner of Regency’s land, Arbours Development Limited Partnership, sold Lopax its land, which Lopax then leased to a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee. The sales contract between Lopax and Arbours restricted Arbours from allowing another “fast-food restaurant … or restaurant facility whose principal food product is chicken[.]” It also lists the types of businesses allowed, which include “casual dining.” Regency later purchased Arbours’ rights under the contract.
When Regency wanted to lease to a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant, it negotiated with Lopax, arguing that the restaurant is “casual dining” and not fast food. Lopax disagreed, saying it believed the contract restricts any restaurant that primarily serves chicken. Regency filed for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that Buffalo Wild Wings is not fast food and that the covenant restricts only fast-food restaurants that primarily sell chicken. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact to try, the court denied Lopax’s motion to dismiss.