Do you rely on restrictive agreements (also known as noncompete agreements) to prevent employees from working for the competition and stealing your customers? If so, now is a good time to make sure those agreements will stand up in court.
A recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case—Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, No. 08-14075, 11th Cir., 2009—illustrates the obstacles and complexity that can trip up employers that take former employees to court.
The appeals court affirmed a trial court’s injunction enforcing Proudfoot’s restrictive agreements and preventing former employee Derrick Gordon from working for the competitor. But the court also refused to make Gordon pay damages for breach of contract and reversed a judgment that would have paid the company more than $1.6 million.
Terms of the noncompete
The agreement in Proudfoot set out a six-month post-termination moratorium that prohibited Gordon from working for...(register to read more)
- Oral promise of extra pay is as binding as contract
- Another worry when complaints get to court: Retaliation may be criminal conspiracy
- Not all harassers need immediate firing
- In New Jersey, even employee's spouse can bring lawsuit—For indirect damages
- Employees must use own vehicles for work? You could be liable