Articles Posted in Non-Compete Agreement / Covenant Not to Compete

|

E-commerce and tech behemoth, Amazon, has filed a lawsuit against the former vice president of marketing for its Amazon Web Services division, Brian Hall, alleging that his new role at Google Cloud violates the terms of his non-compete agreement. In its complaint, Amazon alleges that Hall’s employment with Google threatens to cause irreparable harm and risks exposing valuable competitive information to one of its biggest rivals. Amazon seeks both money damages and injunctive relief, requesting that the court enjoin Hall from working for Google for the remainder of the 18-month non-compete period set forth in the agreement.

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by Amazon to enforce non-compete clauses in employment contracts. In 2017, Amazon sued another former vice president who left Amazon Web Services to take a job with a Seattle-area software company but dropped the suit shortly after filing it. In 2019, Amazon filed a similar suit against a former Amazon Web Services sales executive after he too left the company to take a job with Google Cloud. A judge ultimately agreed to partially limit certain aspects of that employee’s role at Google but did strike down certain portions of the restrictive covenant as “unreasonable” and took Amazon to task for taking a one-size-fits-all approach to its non-compete agreement. This latest lawsuit comes after Washington state enacted a new law last year that severely restricted the use of non-compete agreements within the state. We previously wrote about that new law here. Continue reading ›

|

As we previously discussed here, the Virginia legislature was considering a bill earlier this year that would limit the use of non-compete agreements with certain categories of employees. Earlier this month, Virginia’s governor signed a series of new employment laws including one that bans using covenants not to compete with “low-wage” employees. The law takes effect July 1, 2020, but does not apply retroactively.

The new law provides that “[n]o employer shall enter into, enforce, or threaten to enforce a covenant not to compete with any low-wage employee.” It defines a “covenant not to compete” as “a covenant or agreement, including a provision of a contract of employment, between an employer and employee that restrains, prohibits, or otherwise restricts an individual’s ability, following the termination of the individual’s employment, to compete with his former employer.” Importantly, the statute clarifies that non-compete agreements “shall not restrict an employee from providing a service to a customer or client of the employer if the employee does not initiate contact with or solicit the customer or client.” Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this month McDonald’s announced suddenly that the board had voted to terminate CEO Steve Easterbrook due to a consensual relationship with another McDonald’s employee. The day after firing Easterbrook, McDonald’s outlined the terms of Easterbrook’s severance package in a filing with the Securities Exchange Commission. Easterbrook will receive 26 weeks of salary as severance, totaling at least $675,000 before benefits. In addition, he will be eligible for a prorated bonus if McDonald’s hits its performance targets for 2019.

The severance agreement also includes several restrictive covenants including a strict non-compete provision prohibiting Easterbrook from working for any fast-food competitor and at least two convenience store chains for the next two years. The agreement provides that:

“You acknowledge and agree that, in performing services for McDonald’s, you were placed in a position of trust with McDonald’s and that, because of the nature of the services provided by you to McDonald’s, Confidential Information will become engrained in you, so much so that you would inevitably or inadvertently disclose such information in the event you were to provide similar services to a competitor of McDonald’s.

“As such, you agree and covenant that for a period of two (2) years following your Termination Date: (a) you shall not either directly or indirectly, alone or in conjunction with any other party or entity, perform any services, work or consulting for one (1) or more Competitive Companies (as defined below) anywhere in the world; and (b) you shall not perform or provide, or assist any third party in performing or providing, Competitive Services anywhere in the world, whether directly or indirectly, as an employer, officer, director, owner, employee, partner or otherwise, of any person, entity, business, or enterprise.” Continue reading ›

|

To combat the increasing restrictions in non-compete agreements, legislators throughout the United States have been passing laws to limit what restrictions employers can put in their non-compete agreements with their workers, or even whether they can use non-compete agreements at all. California has refused to recognize any non-compete agreements, and other states have followed suit. A federal law limiting or banning non-compete agreements does not exist, though bills on the issue have been proposed.

The latest tactic used by employers to get around the restrictions placed on non-compete agreements has been something called “garden leave”. Garden leave is when an employee gives notice of the termination of their employment with that business and spends some or all of their notice period away from the office, but remains on the company’s payroll. Continue reading ›

|

In a series of partial summary judgment opinions, the Delaware Chancery Court threw out all non-competition and non-solicitation claims against Alphatec Holdings, Inc., a medical device company, and its chairman and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Miles in a lawsuit filed by Miles’s former employer, NuVasive, Inc. The suit claimed that Miles violated the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of his employment agreement when he left to work for rival Alphatec in October 2017.

Miles had worked at NuVasive since 2001 and entered an employment contract in September 2016 which included post-employment restrictions against working for a competitor or soliciting NuVasive employees or customers. In October 2017, Miles resigned from NuVasive and accepted a position as the chairman of Alphatec the following day. NuVasive filed suit a week later, claiming that Miles’s departure was part of a year-long scheme that included discouraging NuVasive from acquiring the smaller Alphatec. Continue reading ›

|

A U.S. District Court judge in Rhode Island recently granted CVS Pharmacy, Inc. a  preliminary injunction to block an executive who ran its Caremark Retail Network from working for Amazon’s online pharmacy PillPack, finding that the move would likely violate the executive’s non-compete agreement.

John Lavin worked as a senior executive for CVS for 27 years, most recently as senior vice president for provider network services at CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM). In this role, Lavin negotiated with retail pharmacies on behalf of CVS Caremark. In May 2017, Lavin entered an agreement which contained a covenant not to compete among other restrictive covenants in exchange for restricted stock units worth $157,000, according to the Court’s opinion. Lavin’s non-compete agreement prohibited him from working for a competitor for 18 months after leaving CVS.

A year after entering the agreement, Lavin allegedly began discussions with PillPack about leaving CVS for a position at Pillpack and even interviewed with executives from both PillPack and Amazon. After interviewing, Lavin was ultimately offered the position of director of third-party networks and contracting, reporting directly to PillPack’s CEO. Shortly thereafter, Lavin resigned from CVS and started employment with PillPack. Continue reading ›

|

Restrictive covenants such as covenants not to compete and non-solicitation agreements are key provisions of many employment agreements and are meant to protect the company’s proprietary information and long-term relationships. Beginning January 1, 2020, business owners in Oregon using non-compete agreements must take into account the notice requirements imposed by a recently passed law or their non-compete agreements will not be enforceable.

Earlier this year, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed House Bill (HB) 2992, which imposes a new burden on employers who utilize noncompetition agreements with their Oregon employees. Under the new law, an employer must provide the former employee with a signed, written copy of their non-compete agreement within 30-days following their termination. If an employer does not provide a copy of the non-compete agreement to the former employee within this window, the employer forfeits the right to enforce the non-compete agreement. Continue reading ›

|

When a franchisor learned that its franchisee was building a competing app and planning to launch a new business in direct competition with it, it sued, seeking an injunction to prevent the launch of the app and business during the litigation. The district court granted the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed in part, with regards to the injunction’s limits on competition. The appellate panel did, however, remand for the district court to consider imposing a higher security bond, given the sweeping nature of the terms of the injunction.

Auto Driveway Franchise Systems, LLC is a franchisor for commercial vehicle transportation services. Jeffrey Corbett was one of Auto Driveway’s franchisees. Through his company, Auto Driveway Richmond, LLC, Corbett ran Auto Driveway franchises in Richmond, Virginia, Nashville, and Cleveland. Corbett’s three businesses were governed by separate, but substantively identical franchise agreements with Auto Driveway. Each agreement included a non-compete clause, a non-disclosure clause, and a five-year term set to expire in 2016. The expiration dates came and went, and both parties continued dealing as though the contracts were still in place.

At some point in 2017, Auto Driveway learned that Corbett had been taking actions in apparent violation of the franchise agreements. Corbett was building an app to complete against the app Auto Driveway had hired Corbett to build for itself, using Auto Driveway’s proprietary work product as a starting point. Corbett was set to launch his new app through a new company, InnovAuto, that also provided auto transportation services in direct competition with Auto Driveway. Auto Driveway sued, seeking an injunction to prevent Corbett from selling or using the app.The district court granted Auto Driveway a preliminary injunction, finding that Corbett was harming consumer goodwill and was taking Auto Driveway customers through his competing business. Corbett then appealed. Continue reading ›

|

New England employers have seen a restricting on their ability to use non-compete agreements in recent weeks with the passage of new laws in Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In a previous post, we profiled the non-compete legislation passed in Massachusetts. The bills in Maine and New Hampshire are set to be enacted later this year, while the bill in Rhode Island has passed the legislature and awaits signature by the governor.

Maine

The newly passed Act To Promote Keeping Workers in Maine is set to take effect on September 18, 2019. The new law will dramatically affect employers who utilize various common restrictive covenants by: (1) prohibiting employers from entering into no-poach or non-solicitation agreements with other employers; (2) barring employers from entering into non-compete agreements with low-wage employees; (3) limiting an employer’s ability to enforce restrictive covenants; (4) mandating advanced disclosure of the use of non-compete agreements; and (5) delaying the effective date of non-compete agreements; and (6) imposing stiff monetary penalties for violation of the law’s restrictions.

The law prohibits employers from requiring employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level to sign covenants not to compete. The new law also prohibits the use of no-poach agreements, even those ancillary to legitimate business collaboration, and non-solicitation agreements, a common provision in NDAs used by many companies.

The law also limits the ability to enforce non-competes by limiting an employer’s legitimate business to only: (a) trade secrets; (b) confidential information; or (c) goodwill. Any employer who violates the law is subject to a fine, not less than $5,000. Continue reading ›

|

Although many financial planning companies rely on the relationship between the financial planner and the customer, E-Trade’s customers primarily conduct business online – usually without communicating directly with any of the company’s financial planners.

Even so, the company includes a non-solicitation agreement as part of their employment contract with their financial consultants and brokers. According to a recent employment lawsuit, Heather Pospisil, a former financial consultant for E-Trade, allegedly violated that agreement by taking E-Trade clients with her when she moved to Morgan Stanley.

According to the lawsuit, Pospisil allegedly accessed a considerable amount of client information late one night, just a few days before she left to join Morgan Stanley, another financial planning company that competes directly with E-Trade.

Pospisil alleges she was merely accessing the information so she could let clients know she was leaving the company. Not only would those clients be unlikely to care, given the online nature of E-Trade’s business, but U.S. Judge Ronald A. Guzman pointed out that it would have been much faster to send a mass email to all her clients. In addition to being more efficient, it also would have provided evidence to support her claim that all she did was provide notice of her departure.

Judge Guzman also noticed that the number of files she accessed on that night accounted for 75% of all the files she had ever accessed in the more than four-and-a-half years she had been working for E-Trade. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design