1. The federal trial court judge in Jacksonville, Florida granted a request for a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete provision in an employment agreement against a former sales rep of a veterinary orthopedic supply company.
2. The court enforced parts, but not all, of the post-employment restrictive covenant provisions in the employment agreement that the former sales rep signed when he was hired.
3. The term “restrictive covenant” includes post-employment restrictions common in employment agreements, such as non-compete, non-solicit, and non-disclosure provisions. 1. The former sales rep was unable to invalidate the restrictive covenants due to signing a severance agreement after being terminated.
2. It is important for individuals to consult with an employment attorney before signing a severance agreement to understand the rights and potential legal claims being waived.
3. In a restrictive covenant dispute, those defending a non-compete lawsuit should request a full evidentiary hearing before a ruling is made on a preliminary injunction.
4. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an individual’s ability to obtain new work should be addressed with the court in non-compete lawsuits. 1. Matthew Haas signed an Employment Agreement with VOI, containing post-employment restrictive covenants, including a two-year prohibition on soliciting VOI clients, disclosing confidential information, and competing with VOI.
2. Haas signed a Separation Agreement and Release with VOI upon his termination, agreeing to abide by the restrictive covenants in the Employment Agreement.
3. Haas began working for Arthrex Vet Systems in July 2020, and VOI filed a lawsuit and requested a preliminary injunction, alleging that Haas violated the Employment Agreement’s restrictive covenant provisions by working for a direct competitor.
4. Haas argued that he accepted the position with Arthrex after applying for over 20 employment positions outside of the veterinary industry without receiving offers, that Arthrex was not a direct competitor of VOI, and that VOI breached the Employment Agreement by failing to pay him a $100,000 buyout. 1. The Court found that HAAS was not entitled to a $100,000 payment upon termination due to the terms of the Separation Agreement, which did not mention a post-termination payout.
2. The Court found that the non-compete clauses from the Employment Agreement were still in effect according to the terms of the Separation Agreement.
3. The Court found that HAAS’ arguments regarding bad faith termination and the continued obligation to pay under the Employment Agreement were not supported by the Separation Agreement. – VOI had a legitimate business interest in enforcing the full scope of the restrictive covenants due to its confidential business information.
– Haas had access to VOI’s confidential information, even if he did not use it, and VOI had protectable interests in Key Opinion Leaders.
– The two-year industry-wide, worldwide prohibition on competition was not reasonably necessary to protect VOI’s legitimate business interests. 1. The Court found that a two-year non-solicit and non-compete restriction was not necessary and narrowed it down to one year.
2. The geographic scope of the restrictions was narrowed down to the United States and Australia.
3. A presumption of irreparable harm was established in favor of VOI due to the violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant.
4. The Court found that the potential harm to VOI outweighed the potential harm to Haas in enforcing the restrictive covenant. – The court found that enforcing the terms of the employment agreement outweighed the potential harm of VOI losing its confidential business information.
– The court limited the scope of the injunction to allow Haas to continue employment with Arthrex in a limited capacity, considering his need to support his family during the COVID-19 pandemic.
– The entry of a preliminary injunction was deemed to serve the public’s interest in the protection and enforcement of enforceable contractual rights under Florida’s restrictive covenant statute. – The court decision in this case was based solely on affidavits and written documents, with no live testimony.
– Requesting an evidentiary hearing may have been beneficial for those defending a non-compete lawsuit.
– The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an individual’s ability to obtain new work should be addressed with the court in non-compete lawsuits.
– Cantrell Astbury Kranz, P.A. is a litigation boutique focusing on non-compete and unfair competition disputes, employment law, and business disputes in Florida and Georgia.
Leave a Reply