In the Trenches: Post-employment restrictions at Acme are dubious

In this edition of "In the Trenches," Acme deals with an employee who values peace of mind over money. Remember, only the names are changed to protect the innocent.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page

Acme is a component manufacturer selling to other manufacturing firms through its experienced business-to-business sales force. Michael Rhodabotz has been part of that Acme team for the past decade. Jerry Coe, Acme’s sales director, stole Michael away from Nadir Industries, a major Acme competitor, by offering a larger base salary and a lucrative commission schedule. Michael was the most successful inside sales professional on the Nadir lineup. At Acme, he was an outside sales representative, earning even more.

Michael owed his success to an uncanny ability to remember the details about the individual price negotiations that took place with each of the 80 or so customers in his territory. Also, he could calculate volume discounts in his head, which, from a customer’s point of view, made Michael come off as a professional’s professional. Adding his charming personality to the mix made him a winner.

Winning has a price, though. Michael constantly felt stressed. He wasn’t in the best physical shape. He spent a lot of time on the road. His family life left much to be desired, but he hoped that at least the folks at home appreciated the standard of living he provided for them.

When Michael was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, he took stock of his situation. After he got past the initial panic, he decided to contact Nadir about returning to his former job, which would provide a much more favorable work/family balance during the few useful working years remaining to him. Nadir happily extended a generous offer and Michael accepted it.

When Michael tried to resign, Jerry made a counteroffer, raising both Michael’s base salary and commission rate, plus providing him with two administrative assistants to lighten the load. Michael felt flattered that Acme wanted to keep him, so he changed his mind and decided to stay with Acme. After a while, however, Michael realized his situation was worse. Because of his better compensation package, he felt compelled to complete more sales of more products to more customers.

Several months later, Acme reinstated a long-dormant policy of requiring key employees to sign noncompetition agreements that were to remain in effect for three years after an employee left. In his tenure with Acme, Michael had never been asked to sign such a document. He signed it, thought better, snatched it back and explained that he wanted 24 hours to confer with his wife and lawyer before turning it in. The next day, Michael handed Jerry the signed agreement but refused to accept the nominal cash payment that Acme was offering as consideration for signing.

When health and stress concerns again intruded on his peace of mind, Michael announced his intention to return to his former job at Nadir. Jerry made serious efforts to keep him from leaving, even offering to pay the full amount of his group health insurance premium. Michael wouldn’t budge. He returned to work at Nadir two weeks later.

Michael was back at Nadir for only a few days before he made a substantial sale to one of Acme’s customers. Less than three weeks later, Michael was served with a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to block him from working for Nadir or any other Acme competitor within 150 miles of any Acme distribution center in its nationwide network. The suit sought to prevent him from contacting any of Acme’s customers and from disclosing any proprietary Acme information.

Michael fought the restraining order in court, arguing that he was obliged to sign the noncompetition agreement under duress and that both the three-year term and the geographical restriction were unreasonable.

How could this situation have been avoided? How do non-compete agreements relate to employment in “at-will” states? Should employees be forced to sign such agreements? Does it make any difference that Michael refused the token compensation? How does the next employer avoid being blindsided by a candidate’s undisclosed agreement? How does Michael’s health play into the lawsuit?

An attorney says:

Agreements not to work for a competitor following the termination of employment don’t relate to or affect the employment at-will doctrine in any way. The employment at-will doctrine, recognized in virtually every state, merely allows either the employer or the employee to terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason. A noncompetition agreement, on the other hand, restricts what the employee can do after the employment relationship has ended.

An employer can “force” an employee to sign the agreement not to compete by making it a term or condition of employment. In other words, the employer can terminate an employee who refuses to sign a noncompete agreement.

Agreements not to compete are governed by state law, and states take different positions as to what post-employment restrictions are enforceable. In some states, an employer must provide an employee with consideration beyond continued employment if a noncompete agreement is to be enforceable. In those states, Michael’s agreement would be unenforceable because of this lack of consideration. In most states, both the temporal and geographic restrictions in a noncompete agreement must be reasonable. Michael might make favorable arguments on this score, as well.

To avoid hiring employees restricted by noncompete agreements, employers should require new employees to represent that they aren’t bound by any such agreement at the time they accept the offer of employment.

Julie Badel, partner
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
(312) 499-1418
jbadel@ebglaw.com

A corporate consultant says:

The main issue is the noncompete agreement. Michael made choices based on what he felt was the right decision, based on the information he had at the time. To my way of thinking, Michael made two errors. The first was not being clear about what he wanted or needed out of his employment situation. The second was locking himself into the noncompete agreement when there were indications that his health might require a change in work routine.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page
Show Comments
Hide Comments

Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.

Comments

No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments