Following is a Press Release from the Georgia House of Representatives.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Lindsey Thompson

August 26, 2008

(404) 656-5020
 

lindsey.thompson@house.ga.gov

Speaker Richardson Appoints Representative Kevin Levitas to Chair House Study Committee on Restrictive Covenants in the Commercial Arena

 

 

ATLANTA –Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) has appointed Representative Kevin Levitas (D-Atlanta) to chair the House Study Committee on Restrictive Covenants in the Commercial Arena.

 

“I am confident that Representative Levitas will be an asset to this study committee. He is an extremely diligent worker, and I know he will work well with the other Representatives appointed to this committee,” Richardson said.

 

House Resolution 1879 established the House Study Committee on Restrictive Covenants in the Commercial Arena to examine the proper functioning of restrictive covenants in today’s marketplace and to fulfill the legislature’s role in defining public policy in this area.  

 

A restrictive covenant is an agreement between an employer and an employee (or an independent contractor) that limits the ability of a former employee to unfairly compete against the employer after termination of employment. 

 

In the absence of clear direction from the General Assembly, Georgia courts have issued conflicting decisions and voided many of these agreements in their entirety, often on the basis of a strict reading of a technical defect in one part of an agreement. 

 

Levitas said, “It is time that the legislature studied this issue in depth and provided clear guidance to the courts regarding the sustainability of these private agreements between private contracting parties and how to make them fair to all parties.” Levitas said that the study committee will examine court precedent and hear testimony from witnesses regarding the effect of the current state of the law.

 

“I am honored that Speaker Richardson has appointed me to chair this study committee,” noted Levitas. “The history and treatment of restrictive covenants in Georgia have never been fully studied before by the General Assembly. It is imperative that we carefully examine all aspects of this important issue so that both employer and employee can know their rights and duties after employment has ended.”

 

Levitas remarked, “Both parties need to know with certainty what they can and cannot do, and that is why legislation in this area is so important. In addition to providing certainty to the parties, clarifying the law will have a significant impact on Georgia’s economy and the ability of the state to attract businesses to this state and to keep them here.”

 

Levitas noted the he expects that the committee will hear from a diversity of witnesses with differing viewpoints on the subject. Levitas said that he intends for the committee “to bring together all necessary points of view and to gather all of the facts so that we can, once and for all, clearly define and bring certainty to this important area of the law.”

 

The committee will hold its first meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 24, in Room 132 of the State Capitol. The other members of the committee are: Representative Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica), Representative Butch Parrish (R-Swainsboro), Representative Richard Smith (R-Columbus), Representative Brian Thomas (D-Lilburn) and Representative Al Williams (D-Midway).

###

In this breach of employment contract and misappropriation of trade secrets case, plaintiff moved to compel production of e-mails from defendant’s personal Yahoo! account.

Plaintiff contended that Defendant used this specific e-mail account to engage in the activities upon which this entire lawsuit is based. Defendant claimed that he could not produce these e-mails, because they had been destroyed by Yahoo!. However, the defendant offered only a copy of a generic response from Yahoo! about deactivating accounts.  The court declined to accept defendant’s explanation that production was “impossible,” particularly given the important evidentiary value of the e-mails and the “feeble offering” by defendant in support of the contention. Indeed, the Court indicated that it “will not accept Defendant’s position that [defendant] cannot produce these emails until assurance is given from an executive at Yahoo! responsible for such tasks that this request is indeed impossible.”

In addition, the court held that defendant’s representation that he was being “completely truthful” when he did not identify the account, because he knew it would be impossible to ultimately produce these e-mails, to be sanctionable: “It will figure largely into the sanctions ultimately awarded in this matter if it is learned that Defendant’s failure to identify this account earlier is the cause of the alleged impossibility.”  The court stated the particular sanctions awarded would depend on the outcome of defendant’s efforts to obtain the documents, and what was revealed by these efforts as to defendant’s actions, if any, that resulted in spoilation of evidence or other more serious discovery violations.

On August 6, 2008, New York Governor David A. Paterson signed Bill S02393, dubbed the “Broadcast Employees Freedom to Work Act” into law. The act, amends the New York Labor Law so as to prohibit non-compete agreements in the broadcasting industry.  The enactment is effective immediately, and is codified as section 202-k of the Labor Law

Specifically, the newly minted Section 202-k provides that a “broadcasting industry employer shall not require as a condition of employment, whether in an employment contract or otherwise,” that a broadcast employee or prospective broadcast employee, after the conclusion of employment, refrain from obtaining subsequent employment “(a) in any specified geographic area, (b) for a specific period of time, or (c) with any particular employer or in any particular industry.” The act further declares as unenforceable any contractual provisions that would waive these prohibitions.

Within Section 202-k definition of “broadcasting industry employer” are companies operating television, radio, cable stations, networks, and/or internet or satellite-based services “similar to a broadcast station or network,” any broadcast entities “affiliated” with such entities, and “any other entity that provides broadcasting services such as news, weather, traffic, sports, or entertainment reports or programming.”  Likewise, a “broadcast employee” is defined as any on- or off-air employee of a broadcasting industry employer, “excluding management employees.”

The act provides that broadcast employees, as defined, can seek civil damages, including attorney’s fees and costs, as against a broadcasting industry employer violating Section 202-k.

In Baird and Warner Residential Sales, Inc. v. Mazzone, No. 1-07-2179, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District reversed the circuit court’s determination that a restrictive covenant between Patricia Mazzone and her former employer, real estate broker Baird & Warner, was unenforceable as a matter of law. The ruling was issued in June as an unpublished order but was later published on August 15, 2008, upon the motion of Baird & Warner, which requested publication to provide guidance to the real estate industry where restrictive covenants are commonplace.

Baird & Warner sued Mazzone and her current employer, competing broker Midwest Realty Ventures, seeking to enjoin Mazzone for violating the restrictive covenant that prohibited her from soliciting Baird and Warner employees and independent contractors for one year following the end of her employment there. Although the circuit court initially granted a temporary restraining order and ordered expedited discovery, Mazzone and Midwest Realty quickly moved to dismiss on the ground that the non-solicitation agreement was unreasonable, overly broad, and thus enforceable because it sought to impose a “poison pill” whereby any competitor that hired any Baird & Warner manager was then precluded from hiring any of Baird & Warner’s thousands of employees and independent contractors. 

 

Baird & Warner opposed the motion, contending that, based on other language in the agreement, the covenant should be interpreted to apply only to the Baird & Warner office where Mazzone had worked.   But the circuit court dismissed the complaint and dissolved the TRO, concluding that the plain language of the agreement was not limited to the one office and declining to “blue pencil” the agreement because doing so would discourage precise drafting of agreements.

 

In an interlocutory appeal, the Appellate Court determined that even though the agreement was ambiguous as to whether it applied to one office or all of the company’s employees, “there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the agreement was overly broad.” The court noted that under Illinois law, a court determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant should consider, among other factors, the hardship caused to the employee and the effect upon the general public. Here, the court concluded, there was no evidence on the face of the complaint to weigh those factors, and therefore it cannot be determined that the covenant is unreasonable as a matter of law. 

 

Based on this ruling, the court concluded that it need not address Baird & Warner’s alternative argument that the circuit court erred in refusing to exercise its “blue pencil” powers to modify the non-solicitation agreement to render it enforceable.

A maritime attachment arising out of a contract action is appropriate where the underlying contract’s nature and character is one of maritime and not simply a non-competition agreement, the Second Circuit ruled recently in Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 3876570 (Aug. 22, 2008).

The plaintiffs in Williamson had assisted a recovery operation for the S.S. Central America, a steamship that sank off the coast of South Carolina in 1857. In return for a fraction of a percentage of any recovery, the plaintiffs had executed non-disclosure and non-competition agreements. After a successful recovery operation, defendants were able to sell the gold, silver, and valuable artifacts recovered from the S.S. Central America. But defendants never paid the plaintiffs their share, forcing the plaintiffs to bring a breach of contract action in Ohio State Court. 

Defendants removed the State Court action to federal court, and plaintiffs then filed a maritime action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which plaintiffs sought an attachment on the salvage from the S.S. Central America. After the district court resolved, among other things, an order to show cause on the attachment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appealed.

On appeal before the Second Circuit, the defendants argued that plaintiffs’ non-compete agreements were not maritime contracts (and thus there was no federal jurisdiction and prejudgment interest), but instead only non-competition agreements. The Second Circuit disagreed, noting that the test for whether a contract sounds in maritime law is its nature and character, and whether the contracts “principle objective . . . is maritime commerce . . . .” Thus, because the principle objective of the non-competition agreements concerned maritime operations (a salvage recovery operation), the Second Circuit concluded that “[w]hile the Defendants may be correct in stating that these are just standard non-compete, nondisclosure, and lease contract agreements, they are incorrect in arguing that the contracts are therefore not maritime contracts.”

Accordingly, companies entering into non-competition and non-disclosure agreements regarding maritime commerce should expect those contracts to provide federal maritime jurisdiction as non-competition agreements and maritime contracts are not mutually exclusive.

 In Contemporary Services Corp. v. Hartman, 2008 WL 3049891 (C.D. Cal.), the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims removed to the court where federal jurisdiction was based solely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Finding that state issues substantially predominated, the court noted that the “[e]lements and facts that Plaintiffs must prove to establish their CFAA claim are different from what they must prove to establish their other claims.”   

 The court retained jurisdiction over the CFAA claim and remanded all of the state law claims.

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendant Hartman, asserting seven claims for relief: (1) violation of the CFAA; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Conversion; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Fraud; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.   Defendant removed the case to federal district court.  Defendant moved to remand the case to state court.  Defendant also moved to dismiss several of plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in which they abandoned their sixth and seventh causes of action. Defendant answered and filed five counterclaims arising under state law for: (1) Unpaid Wages; (2) Waiting Time Penalties; (3) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; (4) Indemnification under Cal. Lab Code § 2802 and Cal. Corp. Code § 317; and (5) Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Turning to plaintiffs’ motion for remand, the district court held that “[i]n all important respects, this action involves an employment dispute between the parties that has given rise to nine state law claims and counterclaims which substantially predominate over the sole federal claim.” Continuing, the court noted that all of the claims and counterclaims derived from the facts triggered by defendant’s decision to leave plaintiffs’ employment, including that defendant allegedly breached her fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs by deleting work product stored on her work computer and defrauding plaintiffs by making false representations about the information contained on plaintiffs’ shared drive and computer. 

Defendant’s counterclaims for unpaid wages and unfair competition arose from Plaintiffs’ alleged conduct after defendant ended her employment.   

Distinguishing the CFAA from the other claims in suit, the court noted “[T]he elements and facts that Plaintiffs must prove to establish their CFAA claim are different from what they must prove to establish their other claims.” Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract derive from the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the employment contract. Plaintiffs’ claim for fraud arises from Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations during her employment. Defendant’s counterclaims for unpaid wages and indemnification were based on Plaintiffs’ conduct after defendant returned the computer and left their employment.

In contrast, to prove a CFAA claim, one must show that the computer in question was a “protected computer,” and that the conduct involved one of five categories of harm that are a necessary element of a civil action under the CFAA. As plaintiffs did here, claimants most often meet the “harm” element by alleging a loss of at least $5,000 in value. When relying on this element, under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B), plaintiffs are limited to economic damages.

Finally, the court found it “[n]oteworthy that the relief Plaintiffs seek under the CFAA is not unique to that claim; Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to all four of their state claims for relief. *** In short, even as to the array of remedies that Plaintiffs seek, their state claims predominate; indeed, rather than “trailing” the federal remedies, the state-based claims encompass additional prayers for relief, such as punitive damages.”

       

On August 7, 2008, in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. S147190, the California Supreme Court seemingly ruled that Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code prohibits every attempt by an employer to enforce a non-competition agreement. The court indicated that the only exceptions are those expressly set forth in the statute (agreements in connection with the sale or dissolution of a business).

The same day, a class-action complaint was filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Vokes, et al. v. Central Garden & Pet Co., No. C 08-01994, that could test the reach of the Edwards decision.  Plaintiffs are asking the court to invalidate a non-compete agreement signed by Vokes when he became Central Garden’s Senior VP Sales and Trade Relations and, on behalf of all all Central Gardens employees, seeking to invalidate all of Central Gardens’ non-compete agreements as violating Section 16600 and related California statutes.

For more than 20 years prior to going to work for Central Gardens, Vokes had been employed by Doskocil, a competitor of Central Gardens. When he left in January 2007, he was VP of Sales. Upon becoming employed by Central Gardens as its Senior VP Sales and Trade Relations, he signed a non-compete agreement. It provided for 24 months of paid post-termination “independent contractor” status (according to the complaint, however, the compensation amount was “a small fraction of his wages as [a Central Gardens] employee”). The agreement mandated non-competitor employment and non-customer solicitation, in virtually any geographic market served by Central Gardens’ market, during and for the 12 months following the “independent contractor” period.

In July 2008, Vokes resigned from Central Gardens and returned to Doskocil, in Texas. Central Gardens immediately sued in Texas to enforce the agreement and obtained a TRO (according to the Contra Costa County complaint, ex parte and without notice) against Vokes and Doskocil. They then filed the Contra Costa County complaint.

Whether the Contra Costa County court will adjudicate the complaint or will stay the action in light of the earlier-filed Texas complaint is uncertain. Also unclear is whether the Contra Costa County Court will certify the class and whether the agreement might be enforceable at least during the 24-months “independent contractor” period. The outcome of this case, if it proceeds, will be interesting.

Although the trial court’s analysis was not extensive, it clearly found that allegations in a complaint that an employee used a computer program to delete information from a laptop and knowingly deleted information without authorization sufficiently states a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim so as to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

In Alliance International Inc. v. Todd, Civ. Action No. 5:08-CV-214-BR (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2008), the parties contested whether the former employees (now defendants) could be held liable for deleting information from company computers.  Defendants argued, ultimately unsuccessfully, that plaintiff could not bring a cause of action under CFAA Subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) against two of the individual defendants because Alliance did not plead that those individuals downloaded a file erasure program.   Subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) provides a cause of action against someone who

knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer . . .

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i). 

Defendants argued that "[a]n employee’s act of knowingly deleting files by hitting the ‘delete’ key could not plausibly give rise to criminal and civil liability under the CFAA."  (Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 24 (filed May 29, 2008) (emphasis added).   Not taking the bait to argue whether hitting the delete key constitutes a "command," Alliance merely contended that it met its pleading obligation under the CFAA by alleging that the defendants permanently deleted/destroyed information from Alliance computers. 

The Court side-stepped both parties’ arguments, however, and found that the specific allegations in Alliance’s complaint, to wit that the defendants

(1) "deleted, removed and destroyed information, documents and/or data contained on . . . protected computers" and

(2) "knowingly caused the transmission of a program, information, code or command, including but not limited to, Net Eraser Trial, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused damage without authorization, to a protected computer"  (citing paragraphs 62 & 63 of the complaint),

were sufficient to state a CFAA claim.  Although clearly tailored to the facts at hand, the court’s decision could be persuasive authority for a plaintiff to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion targeting similar allegations.

 Not long after the Court’s ruling, on August 12, 2008, Alliance filed a stipulation of dismissal of the case, with prejudice, signaling a likely settlement with the defendants following the Court’s ruling in Alliance’s favor.  The court’s opinion, nonetheless, as well as the parties’ briefing, is a ready resource for case citations on the issue of deletion as well as "authorization" under the CFAA, as the parties and the court cite to numerous federal cases on these issues.

 

 By Robert Milligan, Kurt Kappes and James McNairy

The California Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP  today and held that employee non-competition agreements are invalid, even if narrowly drawn, unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. 

In doing so, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception, which excepted the prohibition contained in Business and Professions section 16600 on non-competition agreements where one was barred from pursuing only a small part or limited part of the business, trade or profession.

In its decision, the Court limited its review to two issues:

1)      To what extent does Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibit employee non-competition agreements;

2)      Is a contract provision requiring an employee to release “any and all” claims unlawful because it encompasses nonwaivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802.

The Court concluded that Business and Professions Section 16600 prohibits employee non-competition agreements unless the agreement falls within the applicable statutory exceptions of sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5. The Court also held that a contract provision whereby an employee releases “any and all” claims does not encompass nonwaivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802.

On the first issue, the Court found that California state courts have consistently affirmed that section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility. Section 16660 states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (emphasis added) The chapter excepts non-competition agreements in the sale or dissolution of corporations (§ 16601), partnerships (§ 16602), and limited liability corporations (§ 16602.5). 

The Court noted that it had previously invalidated an otherwise narrowly tailored agreement as an improper restraint under section 16600 because it required a former employee to forfeit his pension rights on commencing work for a competitor (citing Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 239, 242-243). The Court, quoting Muggill, stated section 16600 invalidates provisions in employment contracts and retirement pension plans that prohibit “an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so unless they are necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.”

The two clauses at issue in Edwards’ agreement with Andersen provided:

1)      If you leave the Firm, for eighteen months after release or resignation, you agree not to perform professional services of the type you provided for any client on which you worked during the eighteen months prior to release or resignation. This does not prohibit you from accepting employment with a client. 

2)      For twelve months after you leave the Firm, you agree not to solicit (to perform professional services of the type you provided) any client of the office(s) [Los Angeles] to which you were assigned during the eighteen months preceding release or resignation. 

Andersen argued that the Court should interpret the term “restrain” under section 16600 to mean simply to “prohibit,” so that only contracts that totally prohibit an employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade, or business are illegal. 

The Court rejected that argument and found that Andersen’s non-competition agreement was invalid because the two specific clauses at issue in the agreement restricted Edwards from performing work for Andersen’s Los Angeles clients and therefore restricted his ability to practice his accounting profession. 

Earlier in the decision, the Court expressly stated it did not address the applicability of the “so-called trade secret exception to section 16660.” Before the Supreme Court granted the petition for review in Edwards, the lower appellate court’s decision remanded the case to the trial court to determine if the trade secret exception applied, i.e. the non-competition agreement was necessary to protect trade secrets. The Court’s disposition indicates that the issue is closed though and that there will be no such remand to the trial court:

We hold that the noncompetition agreement here is invalid under section 16600, and we reject the narrow-restraint exception urged by Andersen. Noncompetition agreements are invalid under section 16600 in California even if narrowly drawn, unless they within the applicable statutory exceptions of sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5

Andersen asked the Court to adopt the limited or “narrow-restraint” exception to section 16600. The Court noted that confusion over the Ninth Circuit’s application of section 16600 arose in a paragraph in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Campbell v. Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. (9th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 499, in which the Ninth Circuit stated that some California state courts have excepted application of section 16600 “where one is barred from pursuing only a small or limited part of the business, trade or profession” (citing Boughton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 188 and King v. Gerold (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 316). The Court found that the reasoning in these state court cases does not provide persuasive support for adopting the narrow restraint exception because Boughton involved the use of land, not a restriction upon a plaintiff’s practice of a profession, and King relied upon a trade secret exception to the statutory rule. 

The Court acknowledged that recent Ninth Circuit cases have followed Campbell to create a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600 in federal court. The Court stated that California state courts have not embraced the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception and stated “no reported California state court decision has endorsed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, and we are of the view that California courts have been clear in their expression that section 16660 represents a strong public policy of the state which should not be diluted by judicial fiat” (citing Scott v. Snelling and Snelling, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1990) 732 F. Supp. 1034, 1042).

In sum, while the Court’s decision clearly states California does not recognize a “narrow restraint” exception to the general rule that employee non-competition agreements are invalid, the Court did not specifically address when non-solicitation of customer and employee clauses are permissible to protect trade secrets. 

The San Francisco Chronicle also has posted an article about this case.

           According to the California Supreme Court’s website, the Court’s highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP will be available tomorrow, August 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. on the Court’s website.

            Trade secret and employment attorneys have been closely following the Edwards case after the Supreme Court granted review of the case on November 29, 2006. 

            In the lower court, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District expressly rejected somewhat settled Ninth Circuit case law that provides an exception to the general rule in California that covenants not to compete are unlawful in the employment context pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 16600. The narrow restraint exception essentially provides that a noncompetition agreement is not unlawful where it leaves a substantial portion of the market open to the employee. The lower court expressly found that the narrow restraint exception was a “misapplication of California law when applied to an employee’s noncompetition agreement.” The court further stated “[i]n our view, section 16600 prohibits noncompetition agreements between employers and employees even where the restriction is narrowly drawn and leaves a substantial portion of the market available for the employee.”

            The lower court also found that the broadly worded release that Edwards allegedly was required to sign was unlawful because it purportedly waived Edwards’ Labor Code section 2802 rights. Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a), provides: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . ." The lower court held that “[b]ecause Labor Code section 2802’s indemnity provisions implement public policy, requiring Edwards to waive indemnity rights as a condition of continued employment violated public policy and constituted an independently wrongful act for purposes of . . .[Edwards’] intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim.”

            The issues that the Supreme Court are expected to address in tomorrow’s decision are:

 (1) Is a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from performing services for former clients invalid under Business and Professions Code section 16600, unless it falls within the statutory or judicially-created trade secrets exceptions to the statute?

(2) Does a contract provision releasing "any and all" claims the employee might have against the employer encompass non-waivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802?

            We will provide a follow-up blog entry once the decision comes out.  


By Robert Milligan, James McNairy and Summer Associate Julia Brodsky