Texas Employment Law Update : Texas Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Russell D. Cawyer : Kelly Hart & Hallman Law Firm : Dallas TX Labor Updates

I subscribe to about 20 very good labor and employment law blogs.  This week, one of the blogs I follow posted a good summary on the employee duty of loyalty and what activities are proper and improper for an employee to engage in who is about to start a venture that competes with his or her current employer.   

Jon Hyman's post at the Ohio Employer's Law Blog titled "Do you know?  The duty of loyalty: illegal competition vs. legal preparation" is a good place to start when evaluating an employee's duty of loyalty and the activities that are loyal and disloyal to an employer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A trial court's order granting or denying a temporary injunction in a noncompete case is rarely reversed by the court of appeals.  This week the Fourteenth Court of Appeals took the unusual step of reversing a trial court's denial of an employer's application for temporary injunction seeking to prohibit a former employee from engaging in certain competitive activities.

In EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, EMS brought suit against its former employee (Shary) to enforce the terms of a noncompetition agreement.  The agreement prohibited, in relevant part, Shary from soliciting any of the company's customers existing as of the date of termination.  The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and later held hearings on EMS's application for temporary injunction.  At two temporary injunction hearings the trial court did not take evidence but merely heard oral argument.  Shary argued that the noncompete was overly broad as a matter of law because it was not limited to the customers that he actually dealt with but instead included all customers existing on the date of his termination.  Without taking any evidence, the trial court concluded that EMS had not shown its entitlement to an injunction.

On appeal, EMS argued that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to take evidence addressing the reasonableness of the restrictions; whether the agreement should be reformed; and whether the restrictions were ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement such as a personal services agreement. 

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the temporary injunction without first hearing evidence.  The appellate court found that the trial court should have heard evidence regarding the reasonableness of the restrictions; the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract; and whether the former employee had dealings with all existing customers of EMS or only part of them.  Consequently, the court of appeals reversed the denial of the temporary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

A copy of the opinion is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an unpublished opinion, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a former employee cannot avoid the effects of a noncompetition agreement under the doctrine of unclean hands, as a matter of law, when the inequitable conduct the employee complains of is separate from the issue in dispute.  (Opinion available here). 

In Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Espinoza, CTOP sued Espinoza after he resigned his employment and went to work for a direct competitor in violation of a noncompetition agreement he signed with CTOP.  Espinoza contended that the noncompetition agreement could not be enforced against him because CTOP had violated a separate Compensation Agreement by failing to pay all wages and commissions owed to him.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for Espinoza.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Espinoza and held that since CTOP's alleged failure to pay Espinoza did not grow out of the obligations outlined in the Noncompetition Agreement, the alleged breaches of the separate Compensation Agreement could not, as a matter of law, constitute an unclean hands defense to the noncompetition agreement.

Employees frequently try to avoid the effects of restrictive covenants claiming that the employer violated some obligation to the employees; thereby precluding the enforcement of the restrictive covenant under the doctrine of unclean hands.  CTOP continues the Texas judiciaries' trend of making it easier to enforce noncompetition agreements in the state of Texas.

Earlier:   Texas Supreme Court holds that Covenants Not to Compete that Contain Implicit Promises to Provide Confidential Information are Enforceable.

Texas Appellate Court Continues Trend of Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week's season finale of AMC's critically acclaimed series "Mad Men" shows a prime example of how to get involved in big time litigation when leaving a former employer to start-up a competing enterprise or work for a competitor. Mad Men is a made for cable series set in the 1960's about a Madison Avenue advertising firm.

In the season finale, Don Draper, Roger Sterling and Bert Cooper learn that their New York subsidiary of a London-based advertising firm ("PPL") is being sold to a competitor.  Shackled by noncompetition agreements they signed when their firm was purchased by the London firm and intent on not working for their competition, they evaluate their options. 

The solution --conspire with the office manager (a long-time PPL employee who will be cast aside following the sale) to terminate their contracts (fire them) in return for a partnership interest in the new venture.  To ensure that their plans are not discovered, the office manager strategically waits to advise PPL's home office of the terminations until the close of business Friday afternoon thereby ensuring that PPL will not learn of the change until Monday morning.  Over the course of the weekend, Draper and company loot client files; take account and marketing materials; and go on a wholesale campaign to solicit firm clients to join the new firm.  This is the season finale and so we don't yet know whether the 1960's London-based company response will be to file lawsuits or do nothing. 

In today's times, I would expect the next season would begin, and end, as follows.  The episode opens in a courtroom where Draper, Sterling and Cooper are about to be sentenced for certain criminal offenses.  The next scene then flashes back to last season's finale with Draper and company wheeling out boxes and boxes of information from their old employer; making solicitations to the customers of their old firm; and competing fiercely for new business.  Lawyers are engaged; lawsuits are filed.  Draper and company are slapped with injunctions that prohibit them from calling on or doing business with old firm clients and from using the confidential, proprietary information that was misappropriated from the old employer.  Next, a grand jury is summoned by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Our heroes are indicted for theft of trade secrets and a whole host of other misconduct.  Draper files for bankruptcy since his resources are drained by being a partner in an advertising firm that is enjoined from working with clients --not to mention the divorce from his lovely wife Betty.  Finally, our Mad Men plead guilty to criminal offenses and are sentenced to moderately lengthy prison sentences.  Next season's opener ends up being the series finale because the protagonists misappropriated and used information that belonged to their old employer.

What this episode of "Mad Men" teaches is that if one is going to leave an employer and either work for a competitor or start a competing venture; don't do it like the Mad Men.  Departing employees should 1) honor reasonable and enforceable contractual agreements regarding competition and nondisclosure of confidential information; 2) not take or use anything from the former employer; and 3) compete fairly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Since the Texas Supreme Court's Sheshunoff and Mann Frankfort opinions, Texas appellate courts have, with increasing frequency, enforced covenants not to compete in the employment context.  Gone are the days when noncompetition agreements were difficult to draft and enforce in Texas.

In Gallagher Healthcare Insurance Services v. Vogelsang, the First District Court of Appeals in Houston reversed a summary judgment to a former employee and rendered judgment in favor of the former employer on a breach of contract claim involving noncompetition obligations.  In Gallagher Healthcare, the former employee was employed as an insurance broker.  Her primary job was to renew existing business and secure new business.  After working for Gallagher Healthcare (or its predecessor) for twelve years, Vogelsang resigned and began working for a competitor.  Gallagher Healthcare sued to enforce its noncompetition agreement with Vogelsang that prohibited her from soliciting the clients she worked with during her last two years of employment with Gallagher Healthcare for two years.  The trial court found for Vogelsang and held that the covenant not to compete was not enforceable.  In reversing the trial court and rendering judgment in favor of Gallagher Healthcare, the court of appeals made the following significant conclusions.

• Two year prohibition from doing business with the 80 customers the employee dealt with during last two years of employment was a reasonable limitation.
• A customer limitation prohibiting contact with customers the employee did business during employment is an adequate substitute for a geographic limitation.
• Information given to the employee during employment was sufficient to give rise to interest worthy of protection and included:  financial information, customer information, employee salary information, client specific insurance information (e.g., insurance proposals, coverages, loss histories, exposures, limits, renewal dates, premiums, commissions and fee revenue), team related income and budgets, account retention strategies, at-risk accounts, strategic prospecting and selling, niche strategies, 2004 financial results, 2005 quarterly financial results, new and lost business summaries, professional standards audit results and related analysis, multiple types of prospect lists, premium volume comparisons, budget reviews, production reviews, internal committee lists and 2006 compensation plan.

The take away from Gallagher Healthcare, and other recent opinions, is that Texas courts are increasingly willing to enforce noncompetition agreements that are reasonably limited. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In addition to containing reasonable restrictions as to time, geographic scope and scope of activity to be restrained, Texas imposes additional requirements for enforceable covenants not to compete with licensed physicians.  Those additional requirements include that the covenant: 

1. not deny the physician access to a list of his patients whom he had seen or treated within one year of termination of the contract or employment;

2. provide access to medical records of the physician's patients upon authorization of the patient and any copies of medical records for a reasonable fee as established by the Texas Medical Board;

3. provide that any access to a list of patients or to patients' medical records after termination of the contract or employment shall not require such list or records to be provided in a format different than that by which such records are maintained except by mutual consent of the parties to the contract;

4. provide for a buy out of the covenant by the physician at a reasonable price or, at the option of either party, as determined by a mutually agreed upon arbitrator or, in the case of an inability to agree, an arbitrator of the court whose decision shall be binding on the parties; and

5. provide that the physician will not be prohibited from providing continuing care and treatment to a specific patient or patients during the course of an acute illness even after the contract or employment has been terminated.

This legislative session, the law was amended to clarify that these additional limitations are not required to enforce a noncompetition agreement covering a physician's business ownership interest in a licensed hospital or licensed ambulatory surgical center.  (Link here).  An ambulatory surgical center is a facility that operates primarily to provide surgical services to patients who do not require overnight hospital care.  In connection with a physician's ownership interest in those operations, only the standard requirements for enforceability in the non-physician context apply. 

The additional physician-specific requirements for covenant not to compete enforcement appear to still apply to those licensed physicians who perform management or administrative roles within hospitals and healthcare facilities. The new law become effective September 1, 2009.

 Follow the Texas Employment Law Update on Twitter here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals, the Court held that an insurance brokerage and consulting service firm’s noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreement obtained in return for an award of stock options to an employee was unenforceable under Texas law. (See opinion here).

Rex Cook was a long-term employee of Marsh USA, Inc. Prior to leaving his employment, Cook was a managing director. Cook was granted stock options in 1996 under Marsh’s Employee Incentive and Stock Option Award Plan. Before he exercised his options, Cook was required to sign a non-solicitation agreement that included a two-year covenant not to compete. In 2005 Cook exercised his options and in 2007 he left the company. Thereafter, he began employment with a competitor. Marsh sued the competitor and Cook. Cook asked the court to render judgment in his favor on the enforceability of the noncompete and the trial court held the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law. Marsh appealed that finding. 

On appeal, the Court explained that:

a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made and it contains reasonable limitations that do not impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee. [citations omitted]. To be ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement, a covenant not to compete must meet the following two conditions: (1) the consideration given by the employer in the otherwise enforceable agreement must give rise to the employer's interest in restraining the employee from competing; and (2) the covenant must be designed to enforce the employee's consideration or return promise in the otherwise enforceable agreement.

The Court then turned to whether the award of stock options to an employee “gives rise” to any interest worthy of protection for the employer. The employer argued that it uses stock option awards with its employees as a way to retain valuable employees; thereby protecting its goodwill (i.e., the relationship between the customer, employee and brokerage firm). The Court accepted the proposition that retaining valuable employees benefits a company’s good will but rejected the conclusion that such benefit gave rise to any interest in preventing the employee from competing. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that “financial benefits . . . do not give rise to an interest worthy of protection.”

As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employee that held that the noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements obtained in return for an award of stock options was unenforceable. Marsh filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.

The take away from this case is that while covenants not to compete have become easier to enforce in Texas, the consideration that is given to the employee in return for the promise not to compete must give rise to some interest worthy of protection.  Money or other financial remuneration alone is unlikely to be sufficient.  Most frequently, valuable consideration to support a covenant not to compete will be in the form of a company's promise to provide its confidential information and trade secrets to the employee and the employee’s return promise not to use or disclose that information.  In that scenario, the promise to disclose the confidential or trade secret information (and the actual disclosure of that information) to the employee necessarily gives rise to an employer's interest in the noncompetition provisions.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reports of corporate espionage appear to be on the rise.  According to U.S.A Today, Starwood Hotels recently sued the Hilton Hotel chain accusing it of stealing trade secrets to help it launch a rival luxury chain quickly and cheaply.  The WSJ.com reports that the lawsuit accuses the Starwood executives "smuggled more than 100,000 documents and electronic files out of Starwood — and that Hilton used the information to create a new luxury hotel brand, called Denizen."

The NY Times reports that Hilton received a federal grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York asking for documents relating to the two former Starwood executives indicating a criminal investigation is underway.

While the allegations in Starwood/Hilton, if true, are extreme, there has been a dramatic increase in litigation between competitors over the theft of confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.  According to a recent survey conducted by Symantec and the Ponemon Institute, more than 59 percent of ex-employees admitted to stealing former employer's confidential information such as employee records, customer information, and contact lists. The ease that employees can quickly and covertly appropriate large volumes of electronic data using portable storage devices or web-based personal e-mail accounts should cause all employers with confidential, proprietary or trade secret information and intellectual property great concern.

The large percentage of ex-employees that appear to be taking their employers information without permission can expose their next employer to expensive litigation and potential damages.  Whether the new employer will be liable will depend on a number of factors such as whether (and when) the new employer learns of the theft; how the new employer responds to that knowledge; and how the appropriated information was used. 

Employers that hire employees from competitors should take steps to ensure that they do not inadvertently end up in a civil suit or criminal investigation because of the hiring of those employees. Some measures employers can take in hiring employees from competitors include: ensuring that those employees are not under enforceable noncompetion agreements or restrictive covenants that prohibit the contemplated employment; ensure that employees are advised to and heed the warning not to bring any information (confidential or not) from their previous employer; and advising new hires not to use or disclose any their former employers confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 17, 2009, the Supreme Court of Texas continued its trend of finding ways to enforce covenants not to compete in the employment context.   In Mann Frankfort Stein  & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, the Court considered "whether a covenant not to compete in an at-will employment agreement is enforceable when the employee expressly promises not to disclose confidential information, but the employer makes no express return promise to provide confidential information."

Fielding was hired by an accounting and consulting firm as a CPA and Senior Manager in the Tax Department.  When he accepted the at-will senior manager position he was required to sign the firm's standard at-will employment agreement.  The agreement contained a client purchase provision.  The client purchase provision required that in the event Fielding performed work for Mann Frankfort's clients in the year following his termination of employment, Fielding was required to purchase that portion of Mann Frankfort's business the particular clients represented. 

The agreement lacked any affirmative promise from Mann Frankfort to provide confidential information to Fielding.  However, Fielding affirmatively promised not to use or disclose Mann Frankfort's confidential information.  When Fielding left employment and began competing, the parties litigated over the validity and enforceability of the employment agreement and client purchase provisions. 

The evidence showed that after signing the employment agreement Fielding was provided with access to and use of confidential information of Mann Frankfort and its clients.  The information included "clients' names, billing information and pertinent tax and financial information."  When Fielding was hired as a senior manager in the firm's Tax Department, he would be required to have and use information confidential to the firm by the nature of his duties. 

The Court held that the lack of an affirmative promise to provide Fielding with confidential information in the agreement was not fatal to the enforceability of the agreement or the client purchase provisions in this case.  The Court explained that when the nature of the employment will reasonably require the employer to provide confidential information to the employee for him to accomplish his job duties, the employer has implicitly promised to provide the confidential information and the covenant is enforceable as long as the other requirements of the Texas Covenant Not to Compete Act are satisfied.

The effect of this holding will be to make it easier to enforce covenants not to compete in Texas.  Additionally, the Court has at least tacitly endorsed those intermediate court of appeals decisions that have concluded that restrictive covenants other than noncompete provisions (e.g., client purchase provisions or forfeiture clauses) should be analyzed like noncompetition provisions that strictly prohibit competition rather than merely providing a monetary penalty for such competition. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks