By Patricia C. Collins, Esquire, Reprinted with permission from the March 23, 2015 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c) 2015 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Mathis v. Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., 13-3747 (March 12, 2015), examined the effect of factual findings in unemployment compensation proceedings in Pennsylvania on discrimination claims filed in federal court.  The conclusion?  The discrimination case is a “do over,” and nothing determined by the tribunal (including the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and the Commonwealth Court) will collaterally estop either party, presumably, from taking a contrary position in the subsequent wrongful termination suit. 

 The facts are these:  Mr. Mathis was employed at Christian Heating and Air Conditioning (“Christian Heating”) for nearly two years.  During that time, Mr. Mathis had placed black tape over part of his identification badge.  The objectionable part of the card professed the company’s mission statement to, inter alia, run the business in a way that was “pleasing to the lord [sic]….”  Mr. Mathis’s supervisor and the owner of the business required him to remove the tape from the back of his badge.  Mr. Mathis refused to do so, and contended that he was terminated as a result. 

By Thomas P. Donnelly, Esquire, Reprinted with permission from the November 24, 2014 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c) 2014 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

I do not generally characterize myself as a fan of arbitration.  While proponents argue arbitration is a superior form of dispute resolution and more efficient than litigation, my personal experience in the representation of privately held businesses and individuals is otherwise.  In many situations, the sheer cost to initiate an arbitration proceeding may be prohibitive.  For a claimant, even if that initial cost is not an effective deterrent, the budget of ongoing hourly fees required of a qualified arbitrator in addition to the parties’ own anticipated legal fees, can quickly impair the potential recovery. For a Respondent, many times the cost of proceeding was not considered at the time of execution of an agreement which compels arbitration; thus the obligation to make payment for a service technically rendered by the courts without cost comes as a surprise. In either case, the parties must realize that at arbitration each is compensating not only its own lawyer, but, at least partially, another lawyer and a private dispute resolution industry as well. While arguably profitable for the legal profession, the realities of proceeding can result in difficult client discussions.

The above being said, there are situations where arbitration clauses can be of substantive, procedural and, consequently, financial benefit.  In such cases, even a skeptic of arbitration must recognize the benefits of the bargained for exchange which is an arbitration agreement.  Under the current state of the law, and given the trends in the enforcement of the right to contract, a carefully considered and artfully drafted arbitration agreement can be an essential aspect to certain business relationships and an important term of negotiation.

Employers should almost always include the broadest possible arbitration clause in any employment agreement and, generally, as a term of employment.  In most cases, an action arising in an employment situation concerns a claim raised by an employee, or worse, a class of employees against the employer.  The employer is generally a defendant.  In such cases, arbitration clauses can serve several functions.  First, an employee initiating the action must satisfy the initial fee if mandated by the prevailing agreement. As such fees are often determined by the amount at issue, the larger the claim, the higher the fee, and the greater deterrent toward commencement of the action.  As of November 1, 2014, the filing fee for the commencement of an American Arbitration Association claim involving more than one million but less than ten million dollars was $7,000.00.  Note there is no refund of the filing fee should the matter resolve.  Certainly, the requisite fee is a deterrent to the filing of a border line claim, but could also be a deterrent to a claimant’s joinder of additional even less viable claims which include different damage components.  Under any circumstances, the employee faces an early branch to the decision tree.

The flexibility of arbitration clauses within employment agreements may prove even more critical.  With careful drafting, an employer can effectively insulate itself from certain employment related class actions.   In Quillion v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc. the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit compelled arbitration of a Fair Labor Standards Act claim and, more importantly, declined to strike down a provision of an employment agreement requiring such claims be brought on an individual basis precluding proceedings as a class.  The Quillion Court indicated that such a class action waiver was consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and suggested in the strongest of terms that Pennsylvania’s preclusion of class action waiver in the employment context was preempted by Federal Law.  Certainly, the equities of any such situation, including preservation of remedies and additional recovery of fees and costs are important to the court’s inquiry, but the current trend is to support the rights of the parties to contract, even to their own peril.

The flexibility of the arbitration agreement also allows for exclusions from the scope and reservation of certain matters for litigation.  Matters of equity such as enforcement of restrictions against competition or solicitation can be reserved for the courts, thereby preserving immediate access to judicial process for enforcement of employer remedies.  Interestingly, the reverse may not necessarily be true.  The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas recently dismissed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a judicial determination voiding certain restrictions against competition determining that such equity claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and, therefore, for the arbitrator to decide.                 

Arbitration also plays a vital role in the ever broadening world economy.  In 2014, international business is the norm rather than the exception.  The courts of the United States and the signatories to the New York Convention on Arbitration have routinely enforced arbitration clauses establishing the parameters of dispute resolution as consistent with the parties’ right to contract.  Critically, the arbitration clause can protect a company operating in this country from the many pitfalls, incremental expenses and inconsistencies of litigating in a foreign country or even against a sovereign nation in its own judicial system by selecting a choice of law and a situs of the arbitration proceeding.  Such forum selection also provides a certain substantive component not only as to applicable law, but also in the qualification of fact finders as the roles of qualified arbitrators available for commercial disputes continue to grow.   Finally, arbitration may be preferable to litigation in the United States District Courts as the parties may be granted greater flexibility and input to the development of the schedule of proceedings rather than subject to the rule of the federal judge, who may or may not be familiar with often complex substantive issues.           Finally, arbitration may also be preferable in any relationship where confidentiality is key.  In some cases, the simple fact of a public filing is of concern.  In many others, the factual allegations of a complaint, even if eventually proven unfounded, can be damaging.  While an arbitration clause cannot prevent a claimant from filing an initial public complaint in court, an enforceable arbitration clause can bring an abrupt end to the public aspect of the dispute.

The courts remain the preferred forum for dispute resolution in many circumstances.  However, with the growing trend of contract enforcement to the terms of arbitration agreements even a skeptic must admit that the inclusion of an arbitration clause in certain circumstances can provide a substantive advantage and dramatically impact the landscape of dispute resolution to your client’s benefit.

A recurring issue employers must address is the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into with an employee. These restrictive covenants are typically non-disclosure (confidentiality), non-solicitation, and/or non-competition agreements.   The timing, form, and substance of these agreements will determine whether a court will find them valid. From a former employee’s perspective, the issue is basically the same but reversed: can the employee disregard a previously signed restrictive covenant without being liable for monetary damages to his former employer (and if newly employed at another company, keeping the second company out of litigation)?

Two cases recently decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court provide guidance for employers and employees:

Fleisher v. Bergman, concerned an employee who was hired as a full-time employee. At the time of his hire, employee signed a restrictive covenant which was a confidentiality and non-competition agreement. The restrictive covenant provided that employee would not divulge any “Confidential Information” (e.g., customer lists, pricing policies, names of vendors) to other parties without the consent of employer; the Agreement further mandated that for a period of five years after termination of his employment, employee would not “. . . solicit or do business with any . . . entity . . . that was, within the three year period preceding the Employee’s termination, a Client or Prospect of Employer... ”

Plan B:  Litigating Non-Solicitation Provisions

By Patricia C. Collins, Esquire
Reprinted with permission from December 12, 2013 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c)
2013 ALM Media Propeties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

Increasingly, employers and their attorneys meet resistance when seeking to enforce covenants not to compete.  States such as Georgia and California continue to refuse to honor those restrictions. Even in states that recognize the validity of such agreements, Courts can restrict the geographic or temporal scope of the agreement, refuse to find sufficient irreparable harm to permit the entry of a temporary or preliminary injunction, or find other equitable grounds to refuse to enforce the covenant not to compete.  Employers do have a back-up plan, however.  Recent cases illustrate that the court will enforce agreements not to solicit customers and clients after termination.  These cases also illustrate that courts will look to the nature of the contacts with clients or employees to determine if there is a breach of a non-solicitation provision.

In Corporate Technologies Inc. v. Harnett, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against a former employee of Corporate Technologies Inc. and his new employer.  The preliminary injunction restricted the employee from doing business with certain customers of Corporate Technologies with whom he worked during his employment, and required the new employer to withdraw bids which the employee prepared during his employment with the new employer.  The First Circuit court noted that the district court was specifically applying the non-solicitation and not the non-compete provisions of the agreement.  Accordingly, both courts engaged in a discussion of the applicable requirements for the entry of a preliminary injunction (which are the same under Massachusetts and Pennsylvania law).  Notably, the First Circuit did not engage in a discussion of the reasonableness of the geographic or temporal scope of the agreement, or whether the employer had a “protectable interest” served by the non-solicitation provision.  The district court found that the employee breached the non-solicitation provisions of the agreement, and the First Circuit affirmed the grant of the preliminary injunction.

By William T. MacMinn, Esquire Reprinted with permission from August 13, 2013 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c)
2013 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

But He Asked Me First!

Is that a good defense to an alleged breach of a non-solicitation agreement?  In a recent decision a Pennsylvania trial court said that it was.

In Marino, Robinson & Associates, Inc. v. Robinson, 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec LEXIS 18 (Jan 2013) Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment dismissing the case against Defendant who allegedly violated a non-solicitation clause.  Plaintiff acquired Defendant’s accounting practice.  The contract signed by the parties included clauses prohibiting Defendant from competing with the Plaintiff or soliciting any of her former clients.  The non-compete was not implicated in the case because, while the Defendant provided competing accounting services, she did so outside of the geographic limits imposed by the covenant.  However, she provided those services to several of her former clients, each of whom unilaterally approached her and asked her to continue on as their accountant. Plaintiff alleged that by providing services to these former clients, the Defendant violated the non-solicitation clause of the contract which prohibited Defendant from “Solicit(ing) in any manner any past clients … for a period of ten (10) years from closing”.  The Court, following cases decided in other states, agreed with the Defendant that she was not required to turn away former clients who, unsolicited, approached her to request that she provide services. The Court held that solicitation required conduct on the part of the Defendant designed to awaken or incite the desired action in the former client. Where, as in this case, the former client approached the Defendant unilaterally, the Defendant did not violate the non-solicitation clause.

A similar result obtained in Meyer-Chatfield v. Century Bus. Servicing, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 514, 517-518 (E.D. Pa. 2010)  where the Court decided that the meaning of the word “solicit” was not ambiguous and applied the parole evidence rule to bar evidence regarding the meaning of the term.  In Meyer-Chatfield, Plaintiff’s Vice-President of Sales and Marketing left his employment with Plaintiff and accepted a similar position with Defendant.  An agreement, which included non-solicitation provisions, was negotiated between the parties.  Shortly thereafter the parties engaged in negotiations for the acquisition of Plaintiff by Defendant.  Those negotiations failed.  Subsequently (and after he was terminated by Plaintiff) one of Plaintiff’s sales persons accepted employment with Defendant and took with him other employees (who were part of his sales team) with the result that several significant customers of the Plaintiff eventually began doing business with Defendant. Plaintiff brought suit alleging violation of the non-solicit provisions in the solicitation of both the employees and the customers.

The language at issue prohibited the direct or indirect “…solicit(ation) of any of Plaintiff's employees, agents, representatives, strategic partnerships, [or] affiliations.” The contract did not define the word “solicit.”  The Court looked to the common meaning of the term, citing the Black's Law Dictionary definition:

"To appeal for something; to apply to for obtaining something; to ask earnestly; to ask for the purpose of receiving; to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading; to entreat, implore, or importune; to make  petition to; to plead for; to try to obtain; and though the word implies a serious request, it requires no particular degree of importunity, entreaty, imploration, or supplication. To awake or incite to action by acts or conduct intended to and calculated to incite the act of giving. The term implies personal petition and importunity addressed to a particular individual to do some particular thing."

The Court also cited the Webster’s definition of the word: “to entreat, importune . . . to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading . . . to urge.”

The issue before the Court was whether the word “solicit” was ambiguous permitting parole evidence of its meaning.  In holding that it was not, the Court reviewed Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., Inc. 216 Ga. App. 495, 455 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. App. 1995), in which the Court held that an agreement “not to solicit, either directly or indirectly, any current or past customers” requires more than “[m]erely accepting business [to] constitute a solicitation of that business.” A party is not required to turn away uninvited contacts of former customers. The Court also cited Maintenance Co. v. West, 39 Cal. 2d 198, 246 P.2d 11 (Cal. 1952) in which it was held that neither the act of informing former customers of one’s change of employment, nor the discussion of business upon the invitation of the former customer constitutes solicitation.  Finding no ambiguity, the Court prohibited testimony regarding the parties’ understanding of the term. 

It seems clear that the Court will apply the ordinary meaning of the word “solicit” which has been repeatedly found to require some overt act of entreaty on the part of the former employee designed to induce the former customer to action.  Responding to an uninvited inquiry from a former customer, even where that inquiry is for the purpose of discussing business, and where that inquiry ultimately results in doing business with that former customer, will not be sufficient to support a finding of a breach of a non-solicitation agreement. Of course, doing business with a former customer may well violate the provisions of a non-compete clause and, in such cases, the Courts have not been reluctant to enforce such provisions.  Although research has found no cases directly on point, the reasoning of the cases suggests that advertisements or social media posts informing the general public or one’s social media circle of new employment circumstances would also not constitute the type of targeted action required to support a finding that a non-solicitation agreement has been breached.

Actually, this blog post is not really about binders full of women – the title is pure, unadulterated pandering.  But it is about the conversation that generated that Tweet-worthy sound bite.  In case your computer, smartphone, television and ears were down this week, let’s recap.  At the October 16, 2012 town hall Presidential Debate, an undecided voter asked how the candidates would address pay inequality for women.  President Obama answered by referencing his support of the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  Governor Romney answered with a story about binders full of women searching for female candidates, and providing flexibility for female employees.  An employment lawyer drooled.  Please note that this is not a political discussion, but a legal one, and the analysis that follows is about whether the law would permit the approaches recommended by the candidates.

 President Obama had the easy path.  The Lilly Ledbetter Act is now the law.  Under the civil rights laws, employees have 180 days from the alleged discriminatory act to file a complaint with state or federal equal employment commissions.  If the employee fails to file the claim in the time required, the employee’s claim is forever barred.  Poor Ms. Ledbetter discovered, too late, that she was paid less than a male employee for the same work.  The court dismissed her claim because she filed it more than 180 days after the first discriminatory paycheck.  The Lilly Ledbetter Act states that the statute of limitations for an equal pay claim resets with each paycheck.  It was the first statute that President Obama signed into law. 

 Governor Romney’s answer invites employment lawyer criticism.  To be clear, this is not political criticism, but legal criticism.  The answer essentially had two parts:  first, his search for female candidates and second, his willingness to provide flexibility to female employers who needed to get home to make dinner.  Let’s start with the search for female candidates.  The civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.   It was not clear from Governor Romney’s answer whether or not he was referring to an affirmative action program, or whether there was a written diversity plan at issue.  But, certainly, the goal of employing an underrepresented group in the office of the governor is a laudable one. 

 Nevertheless, an employment lawyer worries. Imagine two candidates, both with comparable education and experience, both interviewed well, and, in all respects were both qualified candidates.  One is male, one is female.  Could the governor decide to hire the female candidate solely because she was female?  Put another way, would it be discrimination on the basis of gender for an employer to deny employment to the equally qualified male candidate solely on the basis of his gender?  The legal answer is yes.  An interesting defense to such a claim is that the governor had made a policy decision that his cabinet must reflect the views of qualified women.   Employers should always base their decisions on qualifications for the job.  Where an employer has decided that gender, for example, is part of the qualifications for the job, they must also articulate a legitimate business reason for such a qualification. 

 Governor Romney also talked about the need for flexibility for female employees.  Tsk tsk, Governor Romney, tsk tsk.  The law requires that Governor Romney provide the same level of flexibly for all of his employees, regardless of gender.  The law also requires that Governor Romney avoid making employment decisions based on gender stereotypes (i.e., the woman needs to get home to make dinner).  An employment lawyer loses a few hours of sleep. 

 Interestingly, this is the place where the candidates intersect.  The law requires equal pay for equal work, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act keeps that claim alive with each new paycheck. But employees, male and female, do ask for flexible work schedules, and many employers are happy to oblige to keep good candidates. Our advice:  don’t be like Governor Romney!  Make sure flexibility is available to all employees, and that the pay is commensurate with the work provided. 

 The candidates’ discussion does highlight the challenges for employers:  sometimes, an employer’s good intentions, the realities of the workplace, and the requirements of the law seem  at odds with one another.  Even presidential candidates struggle with these competing concerns.  It is our experience that employers can work through these complex issues and strike a balance with good legal and human resources advice. 

Employment agreements, especially those for key employees which include non-competition terms, must be carefully drafted.  What should they include?  Here are eight (what’s magic about ten?) musts: 

1. Define the Restrictions. The non-compete should, first and foremost, clearly define the prohibited zone by industry segment, by geography and by time. Because these covenants are disfavored in the law (certainly by every trial court which I’ve ever asked to enforce one of these agreements) employers must leave no doubt about the restrictions and be able to tie each to an identifiable protectable interest.  The covenants are not enforceable unless they are required to protect such interests, and then only to the extent the restrictions are reasonable. 
  
2. Protectable interest?  Courts will not enforce these covenants unless the employer has an interest which can only be protected by the restriction.  Eliminating competition is not a protectable interest but, for example, protecting customer relationships is. Consider how the particular employee could hurt your business and tailor the restrictions to provide protection in those areas.

3. Reasonable?  A covenant prohibiting competition anywhere in the country is not likely to be enforced where the employee’s relationships were confined to one state or region of the country.  Such a broad restriction would likely be found to be unreasonable.  Similarly, temporal restriction should be limited to the time required to give the employer’s new representative time to meet and solidify relationships with the customers. 

4. Don’t forget to protect your people.  A well drafted employment agreement will include provisions which prohibit the employee from inducing your employees to move to the new employer. Losing one key employee is bad enough; losing three or four may be catastrophic. 
 
5. What happens if the employer sells the business?  Unless the covenant can be assigned, it is lost and the employee is free to compete.  Restrictive covenants are important assets of the business.  Absent assignability, the value of those assets is lost if the business is sold.

6. A tolling provision?  It may take some time for an employer to learn that a former employee has violated the covenant.  Litigation to stop that violation takes more time.  A well drafted document will include a tolling provision which stops the clock from running while the employee is in breach. 
 
7. Protect confidential information.  The employment agreement should protect confidential information and trade secrets.  Employees are often privy to sensitive information which is necessary to do their job.  When they leave employment, that information should stay behind.  Make sure that the employment agreement provides that confidential information and trade secrets will not be “used or disclosed” after the sale.  Define confidential information as broadly as possible, but keep in mind that it does not include information known to the public or easily discoverable.

8. Make violation risky.  The former employee must know that if he chooses to violate, it will cost him.  The tolling language, mentioned above is one way to get that point across.  Another is to provide for recovery of attorney’s fees if the restrictive covenants are violated and enforcement litigation results.

There is a large body of state specific law surrounding the interpretation and enforcement of these agreements.  Make sure the attorney who you engage is experienced in this area of the law.

In a recent case that may not bode well for the enforcement of noncompete agreements in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed twenty years of Virginia precedent relating to noncompetes, agreements pursuant to which an employee agrees not to compete with an employer for a period of time after the termination of employment. Until this recently, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia had similar laws relating to noncompetes. Historically, courts in all states have not looked favorably on such agreements, and have used various tools to limit or deny enforcement of noncompetes. Prior to the court’s decision in Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer, the law in Virginia was similar to Pennsylvania law: a Court could re-write overbroad noncompete agreements so that the document was consistent with the employer’s protectable interests. In Home Paramount Pest Control, the court stated that it would no longer re-write such provisions, and that it was free to refuse to enforce a noncompete that was overly restrictive.

The former employee in Home Paramount Pest Control signed a noncompete agreement that prohibited him from competing with his former employer’s fumigation business in any manner, in any geographic area where he worked for Home Paramount Pest Control for a period of two years after his termination. Prior to this case, it was well settled that if the court found the restrictions of the noncompete broad, it could rewrite the document and enforce more reasonable provisions. The court generally exercised its re-writing power to limit the geographic or temporal scope of the document, or to find that specific conduct did not violate a noncompete if the employer could not articulate a protectable interest in prohibiting the conduct, even where the clear language of the agreement prohibited the competitive conduct. Generally speaking, “protectable interest” means that the employer has provided something to the employee that it has the right to protect, such as access to trade secrets, or specialized training. If the restriction on future employment did not match a protectable interest, the court would not enforce the restriction.  

In Virginia at least, this is no longer the case. The Virginia Supreme Court noted that it had “incrementally clarified” the law relating to noncompetes so dramatically over the past two decades that it was free to find the noncompete unenforceable in this case. Most interestingly, the court focused on language that lawyers generally believe is good drafting. The agreement in question contained a list of prohibited activities designed to address every conceivable kind of competition, as well as the ubiquitous “in any capacity whatsoever” catch-all for good measure. The court found that the employer could not articulate a protectable interest that would justify such a sweeping prohibition. Specifically, the court was looking for a nexus between the employee’s job duties, and the prohibitions imposed by the noncompete.

In the good old days, the court would simply have revised the agreement to remove whatever restrictions were too broad, such as the “in any capacity whatsoever” language. Or, the court may have found that there was no protectable interest in prohibiting the employee from engaging in his current employment. But the Virginia Supreme Court refused to do so, noting that incremental changes in the law required a different result. I will not bore the reader with the court’s very interesting discussion of how the doctrine of stare decisis applies to the case, except to note that the court recognized its decision as a departure from well-settled law.

While this case does not apply in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, many states have seriously limited the enforceability of noncompetes. We are making sure to discuss these issues with our clients, and draft noncompetes as narrowly as possible.   We are also thinking creatively about other solutions to the problem of competition, trade secrets and specialized training, such as non-solicitation provisions. The Virginia Supreme Court has given us new reasons to draft carefully.