An Injunction in a Theft-of-Trade-Secrets Case Cannot Prohibit a Party From Using Publicly Available Information

downloadCompanies suing for trade secrets theft often want not just the monetary compensation for the stolen trade secrets, but also a court order – an injunction – prohibiting the other side from using the stolen information.  

In order to be enforceable, however, under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, an injunction must be “in clear, specific and unambiguous terms” so that the party enjoined can understand the duties and obligations imposed by the injunction and so that the court can determine whether the injunction has been violated.  Additionally, an injunction cannot prohibit a defendant from doing something he has a legal right to do, e.g., use publicly available information along with the trade secret information. Thus, a court order prohibiting a defendant from using trade secrets must be broad enough to cover all possible circumstances while narrow enough to include only the illegal activities.   This is easier said than done.

In a recent case, the Houston Court of Appeals reversed a permanent injunction order which could be read to cover both – the trade secret data and publicly available information.  In TMRJ Holdings, Inc. v. Inhance Techs., LLC, the injunction at issue prohibited defendant from:

(1) “using, disclosing, transferring, or possessing, in whole or in part, [plaintiff’s] trade secret information,” which was defined as “compilation of specified data” for various plaintiff’s processes; and

(2) “operating, manufacturing, designing, transferring, selling, or offering for sale” certain processes that “contain, are based on, or utilize, in whole or in part, [plaintiff’s] trade secrets.” 

The Court concluded that the injunction was not specific enough because failure to define “specified data” and the general description of “trade secrets” did not give adequate notice of the prohibited conduct to defendant.  Specifically, the injunction did not distinguish between the unique, protected elements of plaintiff’s data compilations, processes, or equipment from that which plaintiff’s competitors use throughout the industry.  As the result, the Court reversed the permanent injunction in this case and remanded it to the trial court to consider in light of its opinion. 

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphicCONCLUSION:  In trade secrets theft cases, in addition to proving the elements of an injunction, plaintiffs must also make sure the injunction order’s language is specific enough, without giving away the trade secrets information, to provide defendant with a clear notice of what it can and cannot do.

Leiza Dolghih is a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Dallas, Texas and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Disputes national practice Her practice includes commercial, intellectual property and employment litigation.  You can contact her directly at Leiza.Dolghih@LewisBrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

Trump’s Tax Reform Affects Settlements of Sexual Harassment Claims, But Training Remains the Best Answer

sexual harassmentJust days before we rang in 2018, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became the law, including the special clause titled “Denial of Deduction for Settlements Subject to Nondisclosure Agreements Paid in Connection with Sexual Harassment or Sexual Abuse.”

Prior to this statute, the law allowed companies to claim tax deductions for settlements of sexual harassment and abuse claims and for attorney’s fees incurred in defense of such claims, even if the settlement agreements were confidential, which they usually were. 

Now, if a settlement agreement prevents a harassment or abuse victim from publicly sharing details about the claim, then the company paying the settlement cannot deduct from taxable income the amount of the settlement or the attorney’s fees incurred in reaching the settlement agreement. 

However, while the title of the section declares a lofty goal, its implementation and the practical effect remain less than clear.  In particularly, the following questions remain:

  1. Where the settlement agreement settles more than just a sexual harassment or sexual abuse claim, can the company still claim the deduction?
  2. Will this law encourage the companies to segregate attorney’s fees between sexual harassment allegations and other types of discrimination or claims alleged by the settling employee?
  3. Will this law incentivize employees to add a sexual harassment/sexual abuse claim to other claims simply to put additional pressure on the company?
  4. Will this law drive the companies to misclassify the types of claims that are being settled or seek a general release of all employment claims (without specific mention of sexual harassment/abuse claim) in order to get the deduction?
  5. Will a general release of all claims against the employer result in its inability to get a deduction because sexual harassment and abuse claims are included in such a release?
  6. Will this law result in more companies attempting to litigate the sexual harassment / sexual abuse claims rather than reach settlement agreements, especially on those claims that are weak and/or not supported by evidence – the so-called “nuisance claims”?

This law goes into effect on January 1, 2018 and will not affect the 2017 taxes.  Until the implications of this statute come into focus, companies should consult with their attorneys regarding whether to include a non-disclosure provision in a settlement agreement if any claim of sexual harassment or sexual abuse was made by the claimant.

While the uncertainty of the answers to the above questions remains, the best course of action for companies is to keep investing into quality anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training so as to avoid the sexual harassment claims in the first place. 

Leiza Dolghih is a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Dallas, Texas and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Disputes national practice Her practice includes commercial, intellectual property and employment litigation.  You can contact her directly at Leiza.Dolghih@LewisBrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

 

 

Texas Companies Should Update Non-Compete Agreements with California Employees in Light of a New Statute

Texas California Noncompete AgreementsAny Texas companies that have employees who primarily work and reside in California should update their non-compete agreements with such employees to meet the requirements of the California Labor Code Section 925.  The statute, essentially, forces out-of-state employers to litigate any disputes with their California employees in California courts and apply California law, which prohibits non-compete agreements. Failure to comply with the statute allows employees to sue their company in California to declare their non-compete agreement unenforceable and get their attorney’s fees.  

1. To whom does Section 925 apply? It applies to all employers – regardless of where they are based (so, even Texas companies) – that employ individuals who “primarily reside and work in California.”  The word “primarily” suggests that the employees must both reside and work in California at least half the time.  It applies only to disputes between employers and employees that arise in California. 

2. What does the Section 925 say? It states: “An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following: (1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California; (2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.”

3. Is there anything a Texas company can do to avoid the restrictions of Section 925? The statute does not apply where an employee is represented by legal counsel in negotiating the forum selection clause (where any lawsuits will be litigated) or choice of law clause (what law will apply to such future disputes).  Section 925 does not apply to any voluntary agreements that are not a “condition of employment” such as, for example, a separation agreement.

4. How does this affect Texas companies’ ability to enforce non-compete agreements against California employees?  Prior to Section 925 becoming the law, many out of state employers used choice of law clauses to apply the law of those states that allow non-compete agreements in order to avoid California’s ban on non-compete agreements. Section 925 eliminates this option.  Therefore, Texas employers must rely on other protections such as air-tight non-disclosure agreements.  

BOTTOM LINE:  Texas companies with California employees who primarily reside and work in California should review their policies, handbooks, and employee agreements and make sure that any choice of law and forum selection clauses are compliant with Section 925. As far as negotiating individual employment agreements with key California employees, if Texas companies want for Texas law to govern those agreements (and enforce non-compete restraints) the companies should make sure that the individual employees are represented by counsel in the negotiation process in order to meet Section 925 requirements.

Leiza Dolghih is a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Dallas, Texas and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Disputes national practice Her practice includes commercial, intellectual property and employment litigation.  You can contact her directly at Leiza.Dolghih@LewisBrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

 

 

 

 

Top 5 Non-Compete Cases in Texas in 2017

yearendAlthough the weather outside suggests otherwise, it is, indeed, December – a time traditionally reserved for reflection upon the year’s achievements.  So, let’s take a look at the top five most important non-compete cases in Texas in 2017.

  1. BM Med. Mgmt. Serv., LLC v. Turner (Tex. App.–Dallas, Jan. 10, 2017)*

Held: The employer failed to show a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in breach of a non-compete case, as the employee had returned his computer and testified that he did not possess any papers or electronic files related to the employer’s business.

Why it made the Top Five list:  Early in each non-compete breach / trade secrets theft case, an employer may have an opportunity to examine the departed employee’s devices and confirm that its confidential information is no longer there.  This case demonstrates that taking advantage of that opportunity may result in the denial of a temporary injunction as it eliminates the probability of imminent and irreparable injury since the employee no longer has the employer’s confidential information.

2. In re Pickrell (Tex. App.–Waco, April 19, 2017)

Held: The employer failed to produce evidence necessary to obtain a Rule 202 pre-suit deposition to investigate whether its former employee had  honored his non-compete obligations.

Why it made the Top Five list:  A party contemplating a lawsuit in Texas may sometimes depose the potential defendant to determine if it has a legal claim against him/her.  This procedure is called a pre-suit or Rule 202 deposition.  In re Pickrell shows that an employer cannot depose a departed employee for the purpose of investigating whether he/she honored his non-compete agreement based on the employer’s suspicion that the employee may be violating the agreement solely because he is now working for a competitor. 

3. Sanders v. Future Com., Ltd. (Tex. App.–Fort Worth, May 18, 2017)

Held: Requiring an employee to repay training costs is not a covenant not to compete and is not subject to the requirements of the Texas Covenants not to Compete Act.

Why it made the Top Five List: This case establishes that Texas employers can deduct reasonable training expenses out of employees’ salaries if they leave before the employer is able to recoup its training costs.  Any overreaching, however, by employers may result in a violation of the Texas Covenants not to Compete Act.  See, for example, Rieves v. Buc-ee’s Ltd. (below). Additionally, any deductions need to be structured to comply with other laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, and must be verifiable and not speculative. For more information, look here.

4. Rieves v. Buc-ee’s Ltd., (Tex. App.–Houston, Oct. 12, 2017)

Held: Requiring an employee to repay a portion of her salary upon termination is a “restraint on trade” in violation of the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act. 

Why it made the Top Five List:  The Court’s decision shows that any provision in the employment agreement that restricts employee’s mobility must be analyzed through the lens of the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act, not just non-compete clauses. For more information, look here.

5. Horizon Health Corp. v. Acadia Healthcare Co. (Tex.  2017)

Held: The employer failed to establish that the departed employee’s actions caused it lost profits because it could not prove that the customer that went with the departed employee would have signed a contract with the employer. 

Why it made the Top Five List:  Texas courts require that a company seeking damages based on lost profits produce evidence establishing that prospective customers would have done business with the company absent the defendant’s misconduct.  In this case, the company failed to show that a customer that it claimed it lost due to the departed employee’s actions would have signed a contract with that company had it not signed with the departed employee’s new company.

*Keep in mind that any decisions by the Texas Courts of Appeals may be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which may ultimately disagree with their findings.  Therefore, employers should always consult with a qualified employment lawyer to determine the current status of the law applicable to their particular dispute.

Leiza Dolghih is a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Dallas, Texas and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Disputes national practice Her practice includes commercial, intellectual property and employment litigation.  You can contact her directly at Leiza.Dolghih@LewisBrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

 

 

Buc-ee’s Repayment Provision in the Employment Agreement Is Declared Unlawful, Likened to Indentured Servitude

Buc-ees 2Last month  I wrote about how Texas employers can require employees to repay the employers’ training expenses related to those employees, even if that means repaying an equivalent of 1/3 of an employee’s salary.   I culminated my article cautioning the companies to make sure that their repayment requirements in the employment agreements do not violate the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983. 

Later the same week, the Houston Court of Appeals found that Buc-ee’s did just that by requiring its assistant manager to repay more than $66,000 in salary for leaving her at-will job to go work for another company, which was not even a competitor of Buc-ee’s. 

Here’s a quick look at what Buc-ee’s did, what the Court of Appeals thought of it, and the lessons that Texas employers can take away from this case.

Buc-ee’s’ Employment Agreements

In 2009, Rieves came to work as an assistant manager for Buc-ee’s. The wages arrangement was such that 70% of her salary would be paid on hourly basis and 30% would be paid in flat fee, translating into $14 an hour and a fixed monthly bonus of $1,528.67 (the “Additional Compensation”).

This 2009 Employment Agreement specifically said that Rieves was an “at-will employee” but also stated that she was “required to work” for Buc-ee’s a minimum of five years and had to provide the employer with a 6-month written separation notice.  If she failed to meet these two requirements, regardless of the reason, she had to repay all of the Additional Compensation.

In 2010, Rieves entered into a new employment agreement with Buc-ee’s that contained similar requirements (4 year term and 6-month separation notice) and stated that if Rieves left before 2014, she had to repay a portion of her salary under the 2010 Employment Agreement and the Additional Compensation under the 2009 Employment Agreement. Thus, under the 2010 Employment Agreement, the longer Rieves worked for Buc-ee’s, the more of  her salary she would have had to pay back. 

The Court of Appeals’ Analysis

In looking at the employment agreements, the Court first and foremost noted that Rieves was an “at-will employee,” which, under the long-standing doctrine in Texas, meant that her employment could be terminated by her or Buc-ee’s for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. 

Furthermore, the repayment provisions in Rieves’s employment agreements imposed a severe economic penalty on her if she exercised her right as an at-will employee to leave Buc-ee’s.  Therefore, these provisions had to comply with the Texas Covenants not to Compete Act in order to be enforceable.  They did not.

The repayment provisions penalized Rieves even if Buc-ee’s fired her without a cause and they were not related to Buc-ee’s legitimate business interest because they penalized Rieves even if she went to work for a company that was not Buc-ee’s competitor.  Therefore, the repayment provisions were an unfair restraint of trade in violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act and were not enforceable.

The Lessons for Texas Employers

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphicWhile Texas recognizes the freedom of parties to contract, employers cannot enter into contracts that are illegal.  Under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful.”  Non-competition agreements that are reasonable and are designed to protect a legitimate business interest are an exception to the rule.  Any other restraint in an employment agreement that prohibits an at-will employee from leaving his or her current employer or restricts such employee’s ability to sell his or her skills in the marketplace is likely to violate the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits in a variety of industries. If you are a party to a dispute involving a noncompete agreement in Texas, contact Leiza at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

Can an employer require employees to repay training costs in Texas?

GiveBack-1000x360Earlier this year, the Second Court of Appeals ruled that an employee had to repay 1/3 of his salary to the employer as a reimbursement for training costs when he decided to leave.  The employee argued that the reimbursement agreement contained in his offer letter was unconscionable (legal term for “patently unfair”) and against public policy, but the Court of Appeals rejected both of these arguments in upholding the trial court’s award.

In Sanders v. Future com, Ltd., Sanders signed an offer letter from Future com that stated that he would be responsible for repaying the company for any training provided to him by Future com if he voluntarily left the company within one year after completing such training.  The repayment included travel expenses and “salary paid for study or course time.”  Sanders left Future com within twelve months of receiving certain training but refused to repay $4,003.39 in travel costs and expenses and $34,476.96 in salary that Future com paid Sanders while he was being trained.  The company sued him for breach of the employment agreement.

Sanders argued that the training reimbursement provision was not enforceable for a host of different reasons, but most notably, because it was unconscionable and against public policy.   The Court of Appeals rejected both of the reasons findings that:

  1. The repayment provision was meant to protect the company from the loss of Sanders’ employment before it had the opportunity to recoup its costs from training him.
  2. The company had a legitimate interest in making sure that it was not training employees for its competitors. 
  3. The company did not have to show that it actually suffered loss form Sanders’ departure. 
  4. The repayment provision was clear and understandable and was not hidden so as to create an “unfair surprise” for Sanders.
  5. Since training repayment provisions have been found to serve public good, this provision was not against public policy. 

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphicTAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYERS: Generally, training repayment provisions in employment agreements are enforceable in Texas.  Employers should make sure that such clauses are written in a clear and understandable manner and are not hidden within employment contracts.   

When determining the parameters of the reimbursement policies, companies should make sure that they comply with the Texas Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983, which prohibits the restraint on trade.  In the case above, it appears that the company provided significant amount of training that took up to 1/3 of employee’s working time.  In such circumstances,  a reimbursement clause may be more enforceable than where a company provided minimal training.  Thus, when drafting a training reimbursement policy or agreement, it is best to consult with a qualified attorney to make sure that it is enforceable.

Leiza represents companies in business and employment litigation.  If you need assistance with a business or employment dispute contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

Is Your Non-Compete Agreement Enforceable?

stevecarelEvery state has its own rules about the enforceability of non-compete agreements, with many technical requirements, carve outs for certain industries like medical and technology, and various presumptions or public policy-driven rules regarding employers’ ability to limit competition from former employees.

Recently, I’ve been receiving a lot of inquiries from Texas employers or companies that are moving to Texas regarding: (1) whether non-compete agreements are enforceable in Texas?  (2) what types of non-compete agreements are enforceable in this state?  and (3) when should I enforce my non-compete agreement against a departed employee? Many of these companies already have non-compete agreements with their employees, but are worried about their enforceability in Texas courts. 

I have previously written about how to enforce non-compete agreements in Texas, here, here, and hereSo, the answer to the first question is a resounding “Yes, non-compete agreements are enforceable in Texas.”

The answer to the second question is that, generally, only non-compete agreements with reasonable geographic, time and scope restrictions are enforceable in Texas. 

Assuming a positive answer to the first two questions, the answer to the third question depends on the circumstances of a particular departed employee and the answer to the following questions:

  • What position is the employee in at your company? C-Suite? Sales? Another position that gives him or her access to sensitive information within the company?
  • What special skills the employee has and what specialized training the employee has received in that position? 
  • Is the company where the employee is going a competitor of your company?
  • What position is the departed employee going to take at his or her new place of employment? Is it the same or similar position to what he or she was doing at your company?
  • How likely is it that the employee will use the confidential information he learned while working for you at his new job?
  • What activities does your non-compete prohibit the employee from doing?
  • For how long?  Remember, it must be reasonable.
  • What area does it cover? Reasonableness is key. 
  • Did you provide the right type of consideration for the employee’s promise not to compete?
  • Do you have a non-solicit agreement that will protect your company without having to enforce the non-compete agreement?

All of these factors will come into play if you decide to enforce a non-compete agreement in Texas. Additionally, you will need to consider where to file the lawsuit, the evidence that you will need in order to obtain a temporary restraining order against the employee, and a host of procedural and discovery issues that come along with litigating a non-compete case. 

Bottom Line: Enforcing non-compete agreements is as much of a business decision as it is a legal one.  Having a non-compete agreement that is legally enforceable, allows you to decide whether it makes business sense to enforce it against a particular employee.  Without a legally enforceable non-compete agreement, however, the business reasons may not even matter. 

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits in a variety of industries. If you are a party to a dispute involving a noncompete agreement in Texas, contact Leiza at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

Can an Employee Prepare to Compete with His Employer While Still on the Employer’s Payroll?

non-compete-agreement-lawyer-philadelphiaIn Texas, employees have the right to resign from employment and go into business in competition with their employers (absent a non-compete agreement). There is nothing legally wrong in engaging in such competition or in preparing to compete before the employment terminates.

Thus, as a general rule, an employee can prepare to compete with the employer while still on the employer’s payroll.   There are several caveats to that, however:

  1. Employees cannot use their employers’ resources – such as company-provided computers – to engage in the preparatory activities.
  2. Employees cannot prepare to compete while on the clock.
  3. Employees cannot use their position within the company and their knowledge of the company’s trade secrets and confidential information to divert business to their new company or to create business opportunities for their new business.

Where an employee is discovered to have engaged in some activities in anticipation of his new endeavor while still working for his old employer, the question often arises whether he was preparing to compete or actually competing with the employer.

For example, registering a company with the Secretary of State is a clearly preparatory activity.  However,  advertising the formation of the company on social media or creating a website announcing that the company will be opening soon can be viewed as a competitive activity.  In illustration, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held that a company which set up a Facebook page announcing that it was going to open a veterinary clinic “soon” and provided a link to a map showing the location of the future clinic was not merely “preparing to compete” but was actually competing and soliciting customers.  The court explained that:

Upon review of that document, it is obvious that, collectively, the [Facebook] posts, “coming soon” announcement, and map directions, are tantamount to a solicitation of past or future clients in contravention of the non-compete clause. The resounding purpose of the Facebook page, and the attendant communications therein, was to inform the followers of the page, including former clients, that he intended to open a new clinic and to keep them apprised of his progress. There is but one reason for O’Laughlin to create the O’Laughlin Veterinary Services Facebook page and maintain contact with former clients: to solicit their business. 

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphicBOTTOM LINE FOR EMPLOYERS: While employees have the right to prepare to compete before their employment is terminated, they cannot cross the line and actually compete with their employers.  If you learn that your employee is announcing on social media or online that he or she is getting ready to go into competition with your company, it might be a good time to call an employment lawyer.

Leiza represents companies in business and employment litigation.  If you need assistance with a business or employment dispute contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108 or fill out the form below.

Texas Non-Competes Soon Will Be Unenforceable in California

shutterstock_102117535With so many companies moving their headquarters from California to Texas in the recent years, non-compete disputes involving employees and employers who have ties to both states have multiplied.  

In these types of cases, one of the first questions the courts ask is which state’s law applies to the non-compete agreements in dispute – California’s or Texas’s?  You can find an example of such a case here.  Under California law, non-compete agreements are largely unenforceable.  To the contrary, Texas law recognizes reasonable non-compete agreements and will enforce them. 

Last month, California governor signed into law Senate Bill 1241, which, effective January 1, 2017, will restrain the ability of employers to require employees to litigate or arbitrate employment disputes (1) outside of California or (2) under the laws of another state. The only exception is where the employee was individually represented by a lawyer in negotiating an employment contract.

This new Section 925 of the California Labor Code states the following:

(a) An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:

(1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.

(2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.

The only exception to the application of Section 925 appears in subdivision (e):

(e) This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of law to be applied.

Takeaway:  Texas employers with California employees need to recognize that an attempt to enforce Texas non-compete agreements against their employees who primarily reside and work in California may backfire after January 1, 2017, resulting in employer having to pay employees’ attorney’s fees related to the dispute.  

Additionally, for those employees who might have dual residences in both states and might regularly perform work in both states, the question of whether they “primarily reside and work” in California or Texas may become a pivotal issue to the enforceability of their Texas non-compete agreements. 

Most importantly, employers should take advantage of the exception in the statute as well as identify other legally allowed restrictions under California law that would serve to protect the company’s interests even against California employees. 

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and has advised hundreds of clients regarding non-compete and trade secret issues. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108.

Fox Goes to War with Netflix Over Two Programming Executives Who Jumped Ship

160916165507-netflix-fox-logos-780x439In a move that suggests that Fox might be feeling the burn of Netflix competition, the network Goliath has recently sued the king of online streaming over hiring of its two programming executives.  In the lawsuit, Fox claims that Netflix induced these employees to breach their employment agreements with Fox and thus tortiously interfered with their contracts causing it irreparable harm. It alleges that the conduct was illegal since Neftlix knew about the employment agreements – in fact was warned by Fox about them –  but decided to poach the executives anyways.

Coming out swinging, Fox described Netflix’s actions in the complaint as follows:

Netflix is engaged in a brazen campaign to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives by illegally inducing them to break their employment contracts with Fox to work at Netflix.  This action is necessary to enforce Fox’s rights, to hold Netflix liable for its wrongful conduct, and to prevent Netflix from continuing such illegal conduct.

Fox did not sue the two executives, who are now working on drama programming development for Neftlix. However, it seeks injunctive relief against Netflix to restrain it from interfering with the executives’ employment agreements claiming that Netflix’s conduct caused it “great and irreparable harm, including loss of Fox’s ability to contract for a stable workforce, the disruption to Fox’s corporate planning, and the injury to Fox’s business reputation and goodwill.”  Thus, while the executives are not named as defendants in the lawsuit, should the court grant Fox’s injunction, the order will necessarily affect the executives’ employment with Netflix. 

Takeaway:  2016 has been the year of high-profile non-compete battles in several industries. Nike, Fitbit, Lyft, and now Fox, have all been involved in lawsuits arising out of departure of key employees who ended up working for a competitor. Given the uptick in such litigation, companies should approach the process of hiring from competitors with caution and conduct their factual and legal homework before extending offers to such hires.  

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphic

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits in a variety of industries, and has advised hundreds of clients regarding non-compete and trade secret issues. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com or (214) 722-7108.