SubscribeAdd blog to your RSS feed
FeedbackWe'd like to hear from you
- Can Employers Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation? No, According to this Key Court
- Ex-General Counsel Dodged Privilege Claims Before $14.5 Million Verdict (pt 2)
- How Did This Ex-General Counsel Win $14.5 Million From His Former Employer? (pt 1)
- Beware the Deadlock: Delaware Courts Step in on Corporate Dysfunction
- Insider Trading and Related Risks for Executive Branch Employees: Pay Attention to the STOCK Act
- From New York and Delaware Courts, a Double Blow of Bad News for Sergey Aleynikov
- Headed for Overtime? Trump Administration Will Decide Fate of New Time-and-a-Half Rule
- A Closer Look at the New Lawsuit By Baylor Football Coach Art Briles
- Can an Employer Back out of a Promise to Provide Advancement by Claiming That the Employee Committed Fraud?
- Suits by Suits Named to Blawg 100
- "Key Man" Provisions
- After-Acquired Evidence
- Age Discrimination
- Arbitration and ADR
- Breach of Contract
- Campaign Finance
- Change-in-Control Provisions
- Civil Litigation
- Data Security
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Equal Pay
- Executive Compensation
- Family Medical Leave
- Fiduciary Duties
- Fifth Amendment
- First Amendment
- Government Employers and Employees
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Intellectual Property
- Monthly Roundup
- Motions to Dismiss
- Noncompete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Preliminary Injunction
- Religious Discrimination
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Section 1983
- Severance Agreements
- Social Media
- Statutes of limitations
- Summary Judgment
- Termination With or Without Cause
- The Basics
- The Inbox
- The Yates Memo
- Title VII
- Trade Secrets
- Vicarious Liability
- Wage and Hour
- White Collar Crime
- Workplace Conditions (Occupational Safety and Health)
- Wrongful Termination
Blogs We Like:
The AmLaw Daily
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
The D&O Diary
Delaware Employment Law Blog
DeNovo: A Virginia Appellate Law Blog
The Employer Handbook
Executive Pay Matters
The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog
Grand Jury Target
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home: What You Need To Know Before You Scream “I Quit,” Get Fired, Or Decide to Sue the Bastards
Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
WSJ Law Blog
Showing 14 posts from September 2013.
Here at the Suits by Suits Global Operations Center, we’re a bit bummed that our beloved Washington Nationals Baseball Club has now exhausted any chance it ever had of making the playoffs, as have the almost-local Baltimore Orioles. All is not lost, however, because now we can turn our undivided focus to our Washington football team – the one with the name that is something of a point of dispute. The football season here will be exciting, even if it is off to a rough start.
Glum as our sporting life may be, it’s a worthwhile distraction from the possibility of a government shutdown, although perhaps not as fun as our other new Washington fad: debating the merits of green eggs and ham.
In any event, news of disputes between employers and executives – and news in related areas – continues to come in over our electronic transom. Here are the highlights:
- Here’s a story related to the Affordable Care Act that you may not have expected: a whistleblower suit arising out of the District of Columbia’s work to establish one of the exchanges called for by the new law. This week, a federal judge in D.C. allowed Jennifer Campbell’s suit against the District to proceed. Campbell, who seeks $5 million, alleges she was fired after she spoke out publicly about problems with a contract to set up the insurance exchange.
- We’ve written about former TV anchorman Larry Connors’ suit against his employer and the non-compete clauses at the heart of it. But non-competes are apparently common in the radio business too: this interesting article looks at a few different ones being used in the Atlanta market.
- Not sure how well this translates (sorry), but language education company Rosetta Stone is trying to dismiss a Florida lawsuit brought against it by competitor Open English. Open English alleges two employees violated non-compete clauses and stole trade secrets when they joined Rosetta Stone. Shortly after Open English sued Rosetta Stone in Florida, Rosetta Stone filed its own case against Open English in California; Rosetta Stone argues that the Florida case should be thrown out to allow the California case to go forward. The parties disagree over whether Florida or California law would apply to the dispute, as well – what’s Californian for “conflict of laws?”
- Esteemed colleague P. Andrew Torrez wrote last year about this suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, alleging the clothing retailer violated Title VII by discriminating against employees who wore hijabs; now, the case is apparently settled for just over $70,000 – details here and here.
Those of us who live in or near big cities know the value of a good parking space. Two years ago, New Yorkers paid an average of $540 a month to park in midtown Manhattan. And here in Washington, D.C., a permanent space can go for as much as $100,000.
A good parking spot was also important to Pauline Feist, an assistant attorney general with the Louisiana Department of Justice. Feist, citing a disability (osteoarthritis of the knee), asked the Department for a free space in her building rather than in the garage across the street, but her employer turned down her request. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, and five months later, she was out of a job. Feist sued the Department in federal court, alleging that it had discriminated against her by denying her a parking space and then by retaliating against her for filing the EEOC complaint.
The federal trial judge slammed the door on Feist, granting summary judgment on both of her claims. However, in a ruling last week, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling on Feist’s discrimination claim, sending the case back to the trial court for a second try. Feist v. State of Louisiana, No. 12-31065 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2013). Read More ›
Last month, we took a look at one aspect of the lawsuit brought by former news anchor Larry Conners, who had been terminated by KMOV-TV 4 in St. Louis, Missouri after posting various political comments to his Facebook page. Specifically, we discussed the implications of the Missouri court’s denial of Conners’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) seeking to invalidate Conners’s non-compete clause in order to permit him to seek another TV job in St. Louis. To refresh your memory: we concluded that the court’s refusal to grant a TRO did not necessarily indicate that the clause would ultimately be held enforceable – given the heavy burden a litigant must meet in order to get a TRO – but several aspects of Missouri law seemed to weigh in favor of the clause’s enforceability. (Our full reasoning is set forth here.) We also told you that Conners would be headed back to court to argue his case on the merits. Read More ›
- A former U.S. Tennis Association umpire and referee has sued the Association’s Pacific Northwest Section for allegedly retaliating against her for complaining about men being selected over women to officiate at higher-ranked matches.
- Motorola Solutions, Inc. (which makes police radios and other public-safety equipment) has sued one of its former senior executives in Illinois state court to stop him from heading up the public-safety business at Harris Corp. Motorola claims that the former executive has violated his non-compete by taking the new job and that he could use Motorola’s trade secrets (such as pricing strategies) in the new job.
- The Virginia Supreme Court (see Schuiling v. Harris) has ruled that an employment dispute between the owner of a car dealership and his housekeeper will have to be arbitrated even though their 2007 agreement to arbitrate specified that the arbitration would be administered by an organization that no longer exists. The VSC said that the provision that specified the organization could be severed while leaving the rest of the agreement to arbitrate intact and that, under Virginia law, that means that the trial court can appoint an arbitrator.
- The SEC is seeking comment on proposed rules (see them here) that would require public companies to disclose comparisons between the total compensation of their chief executive officers and the median compensation of all of their other employees. The rules would not apply to companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenue or less than $75 million in securities held by the public.
- Finally, as we tweeted yesterday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a deputy sheriff in Hampton, Virginia had a First Amendment right to “like” his boss’s political opponent on Facebook without being fired for it.
A recent decision by a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, illustrates an important point about the trade secrets laws that is often missed: you can be liable even if you merely took your former company’s trade secrets (such as by downloading them onto your thumb drive) but did not use them or disclose them to anyone else. That’s what a company executive in the Alexandria case allegedly did, and the court allowed her former employer’s claim that she violated the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the VUTSA) (which parallels many states’ trade secrets laws) to go forward. Read More ›
Virginia Supreme Court Last Week: Courts Should Not Rule on Non-Compete's Enforceability in a Factual Vacuum
Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s ruling that a non-compete agreement was unenforceable on its face as a matter of law. The VSC held that the trial court should not have decided the enforceability of the agreement on a demurrer (more about what that means below) because, in Virginia, whether a non-compete is enforceable (or valid) turns on whether it is “reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case” – that is, whether it is “narrowly drawn to protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, is not unduly burdensome on the employee’s ability to earn a living, and is not against public policy.” According to the VSC, this means that the particular circumstances of the case matter, and that the enforceability of a non-compete should not be decided “in a factual vacuum.” Read More ›
We saw this over the weekend and thought you might like to know: more on last week’s revelation that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) favors the “California policy” of making employee covenants not to compete generally unenforceable under state law.
As we told you last week, the linchpin of the administration’s argument is that while noncompete clauses may be perceived as generally pro-business, in the technology sector – a huge market in California, obviously, but also a significant industry in Massachusetts – many believe that the enforcement of noncompetes may hinder employee mobility necessary for such startups to thrive. In this particular area, then, what's good for employees may also be good for employers.
This weekend, Gov. Patrick got an assist from a rather unlikely source – The Wall Street Journal. Greg Gretch, managing director of Sigma West, a venture capital firm targeting technology startups, argues that noncompete agreements are “innovation-killing” and credits California’s decision not to enforce noncompetes for turning San Francisco into a “hot-bed of new startup activity.” Mr. Gretch’s piece can be read in full here; it's worth checking out.
We thought about getting a Putin op-ed to cap off this week at Suits by Suits. But instead, we decided to stick with our tried-and-true formula of canvassing the week’s headlines in employer-executive disputes:
- Bloomberg Law reported on a recent ruling by the Delaware Chancery Court that a company officer and trustee could not invoke the attorney-client privilege for communications with their personal attorneys and advisors sent from their work e-mail accounts. The court wrote that the company could access the e-mails because it had reserved the right to do so in its employee manual, and therefore the officer and trustee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails.
- Pete Brush of Law360 (subscription required) covered the hearing in the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, on claims by a former Intesa SanPaolo executive, Giuseppe Romanella. Romanella alleges that the company illegally fired him after he complained of depression. The company argues that it was allowed to fire him because he refused to provide any reasonable time frame for his return from leave.
- A federal judge tossed a number of claims against Bloomberg LP in an EEOC case alleging that the company discriminated against employees who returned from maternity leave, reported Jonathan Stempel and Jennifer Saba of Reuters. The court found that the EEOC could not pursue a class action because it failed to show that discrimination was Bloomberg’s standard operating practice. Further, the judge said that the EEOC had failed to investigate its individual plaintiffs’ claims and unfairly rebuffed Bloomberg’s attempts to settle. The Wall Street Journal characterized this as a “sue first, investigate later” approach.
As part of our “State-by-State Smackdown” series on the evolution of state law with respect to the enforceability of covenants not to compete contained in employment agreements, we’ve flagged for you proposed legislation in Massachusetts, House Bill No. 1715, that would essentially prohibit the enforcement of covenants not to compete over six months in length (unless certain narrow statutory exceptions apply). Last week, we learned that the bill was headed to a hearing before the state legislature’s Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on September 10.
When Yu-Hsing Tu worked at pharmaceutical company UCB Manufacturing, he signed a strict confidentiality agreement. In the agreement, Tu promised that he would never disclose any of UCB's “secret or confidential information,” including a laundry list of items such as “designs, formulas, processes, . . . techniques, know how, improvements, [and] inventions.” Tu's work was important to UCB: he helped formulate its cough syrup products, including Delsym, and had significant knowledge of its “Pennkinetic system” for controlled release of cough medication in liquid form.
In 2001, Tu left UCB and started working for his friend Ketan Mehta at Tris Pharma. Soon after, Tu and Tris Pharma began formulating generic versions of UCB’s cough syrups. Six years later, Tris's competitive products were on the market, and UCB lost a lot of market share.
UCB immediately went to court and sued Tu and Tris for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition. It asked for a preliminary injunction -- a court order early in the lawsuit that would require Tris to stop using its trade secrets until the merits were finally decided. After a five-day hearing focused on the misappropriation claim, the trial judge denied the injunction, maintaining the status quo for Tris.
Shortly after that win, Tu and Tris took the offensive in the litigation, moving for summary judgment. At that point, UCB made a decision that would end up costing it later on: it voluntarily gave up its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court then granted Tu and Tris’s motion for summary judgment on the other claims, relying on its finding during the preliminary injunction phase that Tu and Mehta were credible when they testified that they didn’t misuse UCB’s confidential info. UCB appealed. Read More ›