Client Non-Solicitation Agreements for Hair Salons, Med Spas, and Others in the Beauty Industry: Writing and Enforcing Them (Part I)

GreenTangerineMayKeratineventpageimgLast week, a famous New York tattoo artist, who’s tattooed the likes of Rhianna, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, and Justin Bieber, filed a lawsuit against a former staffer, claiming she began stealing his prospects while working at his iconic NYC tattoo parlor “Bang Bang.” The owner claims he fired her after “she’d begun secretly cancelling customer’s appointments and referring them to another unspecified studio, where she’d covertly begun working.” The owner is seeking $153,859 in damages, which given that a single sleeve tattoo at his shop can cost $20,000, is really not a big sum.  

The defendant, who herself is a well-known tattoo artist with more than 600,000 followers on Instagram, said she left Bang Bang because she disagreed with the owner “about the path [her] career should take.” 

The disputes over client poaching between business owners in the beauty industry (med spas, massage salons, hair salons, tattoo parlors, etc.) and their employees are very common.  Most of the time, they do not escalate to the lawsuit level because of one of the three reasons: (1) a business owner does not know the departed employee poached clients; (2) a business owner cannot prove that the departed employee poached clients; or (3) the former employee’s poaching of a few clients is just not worth the cost of litigation. 

The salon owners often feel that their employees benefit from being associated with the salon’s name and brand as well as the marketing campaigns that such salons often implement to attract new customers.  The owners also often train employees either personally or by sending them to various classes. The employees, however, often feel that their clients keep coming back to their salons because of their skills; not because of the brand behind them.  Both are usually right to a degree. In the beginning, a salon’s reputation and marketing can help a fledgling professional get access to a customer base, which they would never be able to reach otherwise. As an employee matures professionally and builds customer relationships, his or her clients are more likely to come back because of that employee’s particular skills rather than the salon brand. 

When an employment relationship terminates between a salon and its employees, a good non-solicitation and confidentiality agreement, combined with other key provisions, and smart business practices, can deter client poaching and preserve the relationship between the salon and its clients even in the face of its employees’ departure.  Some of the contractual provisions that can deter client poaching include the following:

Confidentiality – a strict confidentiality clause that explains to salon employees that certain information about clients is considered confidential and cannot be disclosed or used by the employees for their own benefit and/or after they leave. 

Social Media Ownership – many salons in the beauty industry now use Instagram as ways to market their services and often include the “before” and “after” photos of their clients. An employee agreement should specify who owns such images and what happens to them if the employee who performed the work and/or posted the images, leaves. 

Non-Competition – a classic non-competition clause will prohibit a former employee from working for a competitor within a certain geographic area of the salon. This area should be “reasonable” in light of the salon’s geographic reach and its clientele, and the role of the employee at the salon. 

Non-Solicitation – in addition, or instead of, a non-competition clause, salons should also have an agreement that prohibits employees from soliciting their former clients for a certain period of time after they leave. It may also need to address the social media “indirect solicitation” by former employees.  See my prior post here

Repayment of Training Costs – such provision in a contract allows a salon that provides a lot of training to its new hires to recover the training costs if an employee leaves before working for the salon for a certain period of time. 

Buy-Out Agreement – a salon can always include a buy out clause in the employment agreement, which will allow an employee to buy their non-compete and non-solicitation restraints if they wish to leave and continue to work in the area close to the salon or service their former clients. 

They key to drafting the above provisions is to make sure that they are reasonable, not overbroad, and clear to employees. 

In Part II, I will address what salons can do when they find out that a former employees has poached or is attempting to poach clients. 

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.

 

What Employers Need to Know About Non-Compete Agreements in Texas (Part II)

imagesIn Part I, I described requirements for non-compete agreements in Texas. In Part II, I describe the common mistakes that employers make when it comes to non-compete agreements: 

1. Not signing non-compete agreements with key employees.  It seems like a no-brainer, but there are still a lot of companies out there that do not require their employees to sign any non-compete agreements. This is a mistake.  A reasonable non-compete agreement can benefit both the company and the employees. A company is more likely to invest into training of its employees if it knows that they will not leave to work for a competitor as soon as the training is completed, and fair geographic restriction will not prevent employees from finding future employment.

2. Having restrictions that are too overbroad. Overreaching in non-compete agreements can backfire in that employees end up feeling like they have no choice but to violate them in order to make a living and courts are less likely to enforce such overbroad non-compete agreements. 

3. Not having a legitimate business interest to protect. A Texas employer must share its confidential information or goodwill with an employee in order to create an enforceable non-compete agreement.  There is no legitimate business interest in tying up employees with non-compete agreements if they perform tasks that do not involve specialized training, confidential information or goodwill of their employer. 

4. Making all employees execute the same non-compete agreement. Requiring the same 2-year / 200-mile non-compete agreement for sales people, secretaries, and C-level executives raises a red flag that the company is simply trying to prevent competition and is not protecting a legitimate business interest.  Employees that perform different tasks or serve a different purpose should have different non-compete restraints depending on what they do in the company.

5. Not providing a proper consideration. Different states require different types of consideration for non-compete agreements. In some states, just a promise of future employment is sufficient. In other states, an employer must pay money to an employee in exchange for the promise not to compete.  Texas companies should make sure that their non-compete agreements are supported by the right type of consideration in the state where they plan to enforce the non-compete agreements.

6. Not providing new consideration.  When asking an already-existing employee to sign a non-compete agreement, employers must provide new consideration for the agreement.  For more information, see my previous post here.

7. Not enforcing non-compete agreements. Once proper non-compete agreements are in place, companies should make it a policy to enforce them.  Otherwise, the agreements lose their effectiveness with employees, who quickly learn from co-workers that the company never enforces its contracts. 

8. Not enforcing non-compete agreements fast enough.  This is one of the gravest mistakes for companies in terms of consequences. The longer a company waits to seek a temporary restraining order against an employee who is violating his or her non-compete agreement, the more likely the court is to deny the restraining order because the company cannot show an “imminent” and “irreparable” injury.   In other words, if the company has not tried to stop the bleeding, how bad could the bleeding really be and does the court really need to enter an emergency order?

9. Not providing confidential information. As mentioned above, a proper consideration for a non-compete agreement in Texas includes a company’s promise to provide confidential information to the employees signing the agreement.  Companies, however, must deliver on that promise and actually provide such confidential information in order to make their non-compete agreements enforceable.

10. Not saving an electronic version of the signed non-compete agreements.  Companies must make sure that they save an electronic signed version of their non-compete agreements in a location where employees cannot access and delete them.  

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.

Top 5 Non-Compete Cases in Texas in 2018

Top5Unlike many other states around the country, Texas did not see any drastic changes in its non-competition laws in 2018.  However, out of a 100 + cases involving non-competition disputes, the following handful stand out: 

  1. Thoroughbred Ventures, LLC v. Disman, Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-00318, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133697, at *10 (E.D. Tex. 2018).*

HeldA non-disclosure agreement that prohibits employees from using, in competition with the former employer, the general knowledge, skill, and experience acquired in former employment is similar to a non-compete clause and must meet the requirements of the Texas Covenants not to Compete Act. 

Why it made the top five list: This is the first case in Texas to hold that certain non-disclosure clauses may have to meet the same requirements as non-competition agreements.  

Quote: “An agreement prohibiting a former employee in this field from disclosing his acquaintances would therefore be a non-competition agreement in disguise, and would be unenforceable as such. Some of the other categories of confidential information-for example, financial information-might present different problems, but the present motion does not accuse the Former Employees of disclosing anything other than information related to Clients and Contractors.’”

2. Fomine v. Barrett, No. 01-17-00401-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10024, at *8 (App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2018)

Held:  A non-competition clause that covers a geographic area where an employer plans to extend its business in the future, without any concrete plans to do so (i.e. just the owner saying s/he is going to expand), is geographically overbroad.

Why it made the top five list: Employers will often include in their non-competition agreements areas of future business expansion.  This case demonstrates that unless the plans for future expansion are definite,  the employers should stick with the area where the business currently operates or where its employees currently work. 

3. Ortega v. Abel, No. 01-16-00415-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6690, at *11 (App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 23, 2018).

Held: The right of first refusal in the asset purchase agreement, which prohibited a party from operating a business without first offering another party the right to be a partner in the business was a “restraint of trade,” subject to the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act. 

Why it made the top five list:  This case demonstrates that Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act applies to any restraint of trade, not just the plain vanilla non-competition and non-solicitation agreements in the employment or sale of business context. 

4. Accruent, LLC v. Short, No. 1:17-CV-858-RP, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1441, at *12 (W.D. Tex. 2018).

Held: A non-competition clause that prohibits employees from competing with their employer anywhere where the employer does business (as opposed to where the employees worked) can be enforceable against those employees who had extensive access to the company’s confidential information.

Why it made the top five list:  Generally speaking, an employer can only prohibit an employee from competing in the area where the employee worked. However, this case creates an exception to the rule where employees have extensive access to and “intimate knowledge” of highly confidential information of their employer. 

Quote: “Because Short was Lucernex’s senior solution engineer, he now has an “intimate knowledge of all Lucernex product functionality.” Short knows about Lucernex’s unreleased software and its roadmap for future product development. He knows the product functionalities requested by Lucernex customers. He knows Lucernex’s business development plans, its market research, its sales goals, and its marketing strategy. . . Given everything Short knows about Lucernex and its products, customers, and prospects, Short can help a competitor take business from Accruent in any state or country where Lucernex did business. It is therefore reasonable for the noncompete provision to extend to every state or country in which Lucernex did business.”

5. D’Onofrio v. Vacation Publ’ns, Inc., 888 F.3d 197, 212 (5th Cir. 2018)

Held: A non-competition clause that prohibits an employee from working for competitors of the former employer “in any capacity,” without geographic or client-based boundaries, is unenforceable. 

Why it made the top five list:  The Fifth Circuit confirmed, yet again, that an industry-wide restraint on a departing employee, which is not limited to a certain geographic area or the clients that the employee dealt with, is unenforceable under the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act.     

*Keep in mind that any decisions mentioned in this post may be appealed and their holdings may be overruled.  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.

2018 Mid-Year Non-Compete Laws Update

Map_of_USA_showing_state_namesMore and more states are amending their non-compete statutes to make them more employee-friendly.  This trend, spurred by the White House report that highlighted the prevalence of non-compete agreements among low-skilled workers coupled with the revelation that some of the largest  employers, like Jimmy John’s and Amazon, were requiring their sandwich-makers and warehouse employees to sign non-compete agreements, has continued into 2018.  

Thus, on the heels of changes implemented in 2017 by California, Illinois and Nevada, which amended their non-compete laws to help protect employees’ right to change employers, in the first half of 2018, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado, enacted their own versions of employee-friendly laws.

UTAH – Now Restricts Use Of Non-Competes In Broadcasting Industry

In March 2018, Utah amended its non-compete statute to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in broadcast journalism.  Specifically, employers may enforce non-compete agreements against employee in the broadcasting industry only if: (1) the employee receives a salary of at least $913 per week or $47,500 a year; (2)  the non-compete clause is part of a written employment agreement with a term of less than four years; and (3) the employee was terminated “for cause” or he/she breached the employment agreement in a manner that resulted in his or her separation.

IDAHO – Has Modified Standard of Proof For Non-Compete Enforcement Actions

This March, Idaho repealed an 2-year old amendment to its non-compete law that was added back in 2016.  The amendment created a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm with respect to “key employees” and “key independent contractors,” thus putting the burden on these employees to prove that they had no ability to adversely affect the employer’s legitimate business interests as a result of their competitive employment.  

The 2018 bill repealed this rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Therefore, Idaho has effectively placed the burden back on companies to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm before an injunction in a breach of non-compete case can be issued.

COLORADO – Now Prohibits Physician Non-Competes for Rare Disease Patients

Colorado generally allows non-compete agreements with physicians when certain conditions are met.  The 2018 amendment to the non-compete statute added a paragraph to permit physicians to continue to treat patients with rare disorders without liability, even when providing such service would otherwise violate their non-compete agreements. Thus, the amendment protects physicians and their new employers from damages for providing care to patients with a rare disorder, as defined in accordance with the criteria developed by the National Organization For Rare Disorders, Inc., or any successor organization. 

Many other states are considering amendments to their non-compete statutes and we are likely to see more changes in that area of the law in the second half of 2018.  The days of one-size-fits-all non-compete agreements for multi-state employers are gone, and now companies need to make sure that their non-compete agreements are compliant in all the applicable jurisdictions. 

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.

 

 

Non-Compete and Confidentiality Issues to Watch in 2017

Non-Compete Issues to WatchIn 2016, there have been some major developments involving confidentiality and non-compete agreements law, which are likely to have some repercussions in 2017. Here’s a summary of the most important issues that companies should be aware of going into the new year.

1. The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.  This statute, enacted in May 2016, creates a federal question jurisdiction for misappropriation of trade secrets, allows companies to seize their trade secrets out of the hands of competitors in some circumstances, and provides whistleblower protection to employees when certain conditions are met.  In 2017, as companies begin to take advantage of the statute, the courts will begin creating a new body of law interpreting its provisions.

2. SEC Enforcement. The SEC will continue to go after the companies whose confidentiality agreements and policies they may find to violate the SEC’s whistleblowing rules.  Making sure that confidentiality agreements include the language specified in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act may help with SEC’s scrutiny.

3. Choice of Law Issues.  Choice of law issues in interstate non-compete and confidentiality disputes will continue to be of major concern to companies who have out-of-state employees. A number of states in 2016 passed statutes dramatically limiting non-competes and California passed a statute that prohibits application of other states’ laws to its employees’ non-compete agreements. Business owners should make sure that their non-competes are enforceable in the jurisdictions in which they intend to enforce them.

4. Disclosure of Trade Secrets During Litigation.  This will continue to be a major point of dispute in trade secrets and non-compete lawsuits. For example, earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court addressed what a trial judge must consider before allowing a competitor’s corporate representative in the courtroom during the testimony that might reveal the adverse party’s trade secrets. Thus, in 2017, those companies that are engaged in trade secrets misappropriation litigation in Texas will need to consider how this balancing test will apply in their particular circumstances. Many other states’ courts faced a similar issue in 2016 and have fashioned their own rules regarding when the disclosure of trade secrets in litigation is appropriate. 

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_VectorGraphicLeiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. 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.