Texas Non-Compete Law: Can Duration of Non-Compete Agreements be "Equitably Extended"?

In a recent Texas case involving a restrictive covenant, the plaintiff contended that the duration of the non-compete covenant should be judicially extended beyond the agreement’s normal expiration date. In that case, the seller of a dance studio entered into an agreement in which she promised not to compete with the buyer. As is true in most states, non-compete covenants contained in buy-sell agreements are more enforceable than those contained in employment agreements. The covenant in this case was for five years, and the geographical scope consisted of a 50-mile radius around Waco.

The buyer subsequently sued the seller, contending that the latter was in breach of the non-compete agreement. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and an appeal was taken.

On appeal, the seller contended that the trial court erred in holding that the ending date of the covenant not to compete was five years from the date of judgment (as opposed to five years from when the non-compete agreement was signed). The buyer responded that the trial court was right to “equitably extend” the duration of the covenant because of the seller’s “continuous and persistent” violations of the covenant.

The evidence for the alleged “continuous and persistent” violation was as follows:

The Sale and Purchase Agreement was signed on February 27, 2004. Lezley did not begin working for Unity Dance and the Bratchers until July 11, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the trial court temporarily enjoined Lezley from either directly or indirectly soliciting or encouraging any current and/or potential students of Holley's dance studio, Jenni Holley Dance Designs, to become either her student or the student of any other dance company or teacher within 50 miles of Holley's dance studio. She was not specifically enjoined from teaching dance. Unity Dance and Bill and Donna Bratcher were enjoined from either directly or indirectly using Lezley's name in their advertising. They were also enjoined from soliciting or encouraging by direct contact any persons known by them to be current customers of Holley's dance studio as long as Lezley was working at Unity Dance. There is no indication in the record that Lezley, Unity Dance, or the Bratchers violated this temporary injunction.

Based upon these facts, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in equitably extending the non-compete covenant.  However, the court also stated, “We do not hold that a covenant not to compete cannot be equitably extended, but hold that the record does not support Holley’s argument that the violations of the covenant, if any, were `continuous and persistent.’” 


Farmer v. Holley, 237 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.--Waco 2007), review denied.

 

 www.felllawfirm.com

Texas Noncompete Agreements: Effect of Employer Breach

What happens if an employer seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement is itself in breach of the agreement.  Does the employer's previous breach adversely affect its ability to enforce the non-compete?  Maybe.

It's "hornbook" law in Texas that one party to a contract is precluded from enforcing a contract if that party itself is in “material” breach. In DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 682 (Tex. 1990, the Texas Supreme Court explicitly recognized that an employer in material breach of an employment agreement could be estopped from enforcing the non-compete provisions contained therein.  Of course, an issue in every case will be whether, assuming the employer is in breach, the breach is “material.”  Failure to pay compensation to which the employee is entitled might, in appropriate circumstances, qualify as material.  Thus, an employer wishing to enforce a non-compete agreement should ensure that it is not already in material breach.

 

www.felllawfirm.com

 

Texas Trade Secret Law: When Your New Employee Knows Too Much


Not infrequently, whenever an employer hires a competitor’s ex-employee, the competitor sues not only its ex-employee (for an alleged non-compete violation, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, etc.), but also the new employer.  The plaintiff contends, for example, that just as its ex-employee is liable for using and disclosing its trade secrets, the new employer is also liable for receiving and using the secrets.

One way in which new employers try to inoculate themselves against such a suit is by directing their new employees not to bring their former employer’s confidential information with them.  In a case decided within the past two months, the “new” employer sent an offer letter to its prospective new employee containing the following language:

We are not interested in confidential business information or trade secrets from your former employer.  Rather, we are looking for your sales talent to contribute to the success of our business.  We do not want you to use any of the confidential and/or proprietary information while you are working for us.  We ask that you not use or divulge any confidential and/or proprietary information obtained during your [previous] employment and require that you sign an Agreement on Prohibited Disclosures as a condition of this offer.

After the employee resigned from his “old” job and began his new one, his new employer had him sign a non-disclosure agreement containing the following language:

You agree not to use, have in your possession, or refer to any information, data process, or method which is or was claimed to be confidential or proprietary by any former employer, customer, supplier or consultant.

By way of clarification, and not by limitation, you agree neither to use, have in your possession, nor refer to any of the following items from a former employer . . . if such information is or was claimed to be confidential or proprietary:

·        Blueprints

·        Business Plans

·        Computer Programs

·        Computers

·        Confidential Knowledge

·        Consultant Lists

·        Customer Lists

·        Data Bases

·        Confidential or Proprietary Data

·        Computer Media (e.g., disks CDs)

·        Documents

·        Employee Lists

·        Equipment

·        Training Materials

·        Files

·        Financial Information

·        Formulas

·        Manuals

·        Market Information

·        Marketing Materials

·        Notebooks

·        Notes

·        Original Works of Authorship

·        Sketches

·        Software

·        Telephone Directories

·        Trade Secrets

·        Vendor Lists

When the former employer subsequently sued both its ex-employee and the new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets, the court found the new employer’s insistence that its new employee not bring any confidential information with him (as evidenced by the documents referenced above) as persuasive evidence (but not the only evidence in the case) that the employee had not in fact done so.

When hiring a new employee, especially one involved in sales (i.e., an employee who, were he trying to do so, might be able to “steal” his former employer’s clients), a new employer is wise to direct its new employee not to use or disclose his former employer’s confidential information (and also to have the new employee sign a non-disclosure agreement that contains a provision reiterating that direction).

 www.felllawfirm.com

Texas Executive Employment Agreements: Checklist for Employees


Employees signing employment agreements in Texas should be mindful of the following potential terms:

            1.         Term of Employment. Employment agreements are typically either for a fixed term or are at-will. An at-will agreement, obviously, can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. Some agreements contain “Evergreen” provisions, which state that the term of the agreement shall be automatically extended unless one of the parties notifies the other of its intention that the agreement expire at the end of the then current term (with such notice typically being due thirty or sixty days before the end of the term). Moreover, some employment agreements that are purportedly for a fixed term (e.g., a one-year term) also contain provisions pursuant to which the employer may terminate the employee “for any reason” on shorter notice (e.g., “thirty days’ notice”)—such an agreement is in reality a 30-day employment contract.

            2.         Position, job duties, location. Employment agreements routinely contain provisions outlining what the employee’s title will be, what his duties will be, to whom he will report, where he will work, etc. From the employee’s perspective, it is important that these terms be fairly well defined. For example, does the agreement allow the employer to transfer the employee out of state, or are there restrictions on the employer’s ability to do so? Does the agreement permit the employer to alter the employee’s job duties, or to change the person to whom the employee reports? Especially from the employee’s perspective, it is important that the agreement define these terms with some precision.

            3.         Compensation. Employment agreements typically reference some guaranteed compensation (e.g., salary) and some discretionary compensation (e.g., bonuses and stock options). On the guaranteed part, employees need to know whether they are to be classified as “exempt” under the FLSA or non-exempt. Employees need to know what must occur for the bonus to be paid. Is payment of the bonus totally discretionary? Does it depend upon the company’s performance, or the employee’s performance, or both? Granting of stock options often usually will be governed by a separate plan, and the employee needs to know what its terms are.

            4.         Termination for Cause.  Employment agreements often provide that an employee may be terminated for “cause,” and “cause” is defined to include various acts or omissions by the employee. Some of the acts—such as commission of a felony, or embezzlement of company funds—are fairly easy to understand. However, defining “cause” to include the employee’s failure to perform her job duties may be somewhat problematic from the employee’s perspective, because whether the employee is performing well can be subjective. Generally, employees want what constitutes “cause” to be defined as precisely as possible. Even in an at-will employment agreement, whether “cause” exists can be relevant for other reasons—e.g., whether the terminated employee is eligible to receive severance benefits.

            5.         Termination for Good Reason. Employment agreements for a specified term often set forth situations in which the employee may voluntarily resign. “Good reason” for the employee to terminate might exist where the employee is demoted, or his pay is cut, or he his transferred. Again, even in at-will employment situation, the concept of termination for “good reason” might be relevant to whether the employee receives severance benefits.

            6.         Nondisclosure Agreements. Employment agreements routinely contain provisions prohibiting the employee from disclosing the employer’s confidential or proprietary information to a third party. An employee needs to know what information the employer considers to be confidential or proprietary.

            7.         Noncompete Agreements. Especially for salespeople, executives, or managers, employment agreements can contain provisions limiting an employee’s right to compete with the employer, both during and after employment. The provision usually will specify certain activities in which the employee may not engage, and will typically contain a geographic scope as well. The employee will want to fully understand how long the non-compete lasts, and what it precludes the employee from doing (both in terms of the activities to be restrained and the geographical scope of the restrictions).

            8.         Nonsolicitation Agreements. Along with noncompete provisions, employment agreements often contain provisions prohibiting the employee from soliciting the employer’s customers, or its employees, or its vendors. In Texas, these provisions can be enforceable, but they are held to the same standard to which noncompete agreements are held—i.e., the employer must give consideration to the employee (such as confidential information) that justifies the nonsolicitation provision, and the provision must be reasonable in scope.

            9.         Change in Control. What happens if the employer is purchased by another company? Should that affect the employee’s obligations? Should the employee be able to escape his noncompete and nonsolicitation obligations? On a related note, should the employer be able to assign the agreement to another company (so that the “new” company can enforce the employee’s noncompete and nonsolicitation obligations)? Employment agreements don’t always address these issues, but employees are wise to think about them.

            10.        Arbitration. More and more, employment agreements state that legal disputes between employers and employees must be submitted to binding arbitration (versus being litigated in court). Provisions like this can be one-sided (i.e., sometimes, only the employee is required to arbitrate its disputes, whereas the employer can go to court). Employers need to be mindful of the effects of agreeing to arbitrate disputes as opposed to litigate them.

            11.        Choice of Law and Forum Selection. Employment agreements usually specify the state whose law will govern the agreement, and they sometimes specify the place where suit must be filed in the event of a legal dispute. The latter can be especially problematic for an employee, because it may require her to bring any claims she may have in a foreign state, which can be very expensive.
 

www.felllawfirm.com