Inadequate Evidence to Prove Indirect Solicitation

PCRE v. Unger, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1129

Ms. Adele Unger worked for Prudential Reality and signed an employment agreement with the company at the start of her employment that contained a non-compete clause.  The restrictive covenant prohibited her for a period of one year following termination from directly or indirectly influencing any Prudential Reality employee to sever his or her employment/association with the company or any of its subsidiaries.  Upon termination from Prudential, Ms. Unger began to work as a real estate agent for Paul Breunich and William Pitt Real Estate, LLC.  She notified the company’s President and Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Paul Breunich) of the existence of the restrictive covenant with her former employer and that she was legally prohibited from recruiting Prudential agents to work for the company.  Mr. Breunich, in connection with his management positions, solicited/recruited agents for offices where the office manager was a signatory to a non-compete agreement with a former employer.  Ms. Unger did not solicit any agent from her former employer or furnish her new company with any information but Mr. Breunich did contact several Prudential agents to inquire if they were interested in switching companies.  Prudential sued Ms. Unger and her new employer for violation of the restrictive covenant, alleging that Mr. Breunich’s actions constituted an indirect solicitation by Ms. Unger, a business activity expressly prohibited in the employment agreement.

The court denied Prudential’s request for injunctive relief and held that Ms. Unger had not directly or indirectly violated the restrictive covenant contained in the employment agreement.  The parties did not dispute that Mr. Breunich contacted and solicited Prudential agents, but the court did find any evidence that Ms. Unger provided him with any information to assist in his solicitations.  There was no conscious disregard for the restrictive covenant by Ms. Unger, in either a direct or an indirect manner.  It would be an entirely different case if Ms. Unger’s superiors had solicited Prudential agents based on proprietary information she gained while working for her former employee, but this was not at all the circumstances of the case.  Prudential was not able to present adequate and convincing evidence that Ms. Unger had in any way violated the restrictive covenant and as such, the court denied the company’s request for an injunction against Ms. Unger.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

 

Keywords: conscious disregard, direct solicitation, real estate agent, enforcement, franchise, injunctive relief, obligations, prohibitions, valid, attempted solicitation, solicitation, refuse to enforce, reasonably necessary, former employer, previous employer, job responsibilities, binding, classified information, commercial operations, competing, compete, directly, employer’s interest, indirectly, internet-based, protect, reasonable, restricting disclosures, restricting disclosures, similar products, burden of proof, duress, direct competitor, disclosure of trade secrets, employment contract, enforceability, geographic limitations, headquarters, improper competition, injunction, management responsibilities, non-compete covenant, radius, sales representative, time limitations, new employment, unreasonable provisions, attorney, attorneys, employment attorneys, bonus, bonuses, companies, company, connecticut, customary practices, Darien, departing employees, directors, employee, employer, employment law, employment at-will, at-will, legal counsel, executives, New York, Fairfield, Fairfield County, Norwalk, Westport, Weston, Easton, Bridgeport, Stamford, Stratford, severance package, Greenwich, harassment, discrimination, hiring, human resources, job offers, lawyer, lawyers, leaving company, leverage, Maya Murphy, negotiated, negotiating severance packages, negotiation, New Canaan, non-compete, non compete,  non-competition, non-disparagement, non-solicitation, offer, offer agreement, offer letter, P.C., payroll, position, represent, representation, salary, salaries,  senior management, manager, separation agreement, severance agreements, severance letters, severance package, termination, vacation, vesting, vesting of stock options, law firm, public interest, monopoly, start own business, voluntary, voluntarily left, mediation, burdensome, excessive, geographical, occupation, practice, territorial, violation, restrictive, proprietary knowledge, scope, narrow, broad, anti-compete, future clients, adequate consideration, competing businesses, confidentiality agreement,  conflict of interest, defense, fraud, consideration, oral representations, written approval, commercial, compensation, clients, contracts, duration, area, restricted area, future employment, misrepresentations, competing services, irreparable harm