Piscitelli v. Pepe, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3264
Ms. Francine Piscitelli owned and operated a hairdressing and beauty salon since 1985. She employed Ms. Bernadette Pepe as a stylist from 1990 to July 31, 2004. The salon moved and underwent a change in its trade name in 1997. Ms. Piscitelli had Ms. Pepe sign an Employment Agreement on February 27, 1997 that contained a restrictive covenant. The non-compete agreement prohibited Ms. Pepe for one year following termination from engaging in competing business activities, soliciting the salon’s employees, or soliciting the salon’s current clients. The agreement designated a restricted area for the covenant not to compete: Branford, North Branford, East Haven, Guilford, and the portion of New Haven east of the waterway formed by the Quinnipiac River, New Haven Harbor, and Morris Cove.
Ms. Pepe signed a three-year lease on March 9, 2002 for a premise in North Branford to operate a full-service hair and nail salon. Ms. Piscitelli learned of this in May 2004, confronted Ms. Pepe about the development, and Ms. Pepe confirmed what her boss had been hearing around the salon. Ms. Pepe assured her boss that she would not be soliciting any of the employees or any current clients beyond her own. Ms. Piscitelli was comforted by these assurances and allowed Ms. Pepe to continue to schedule appointments at the salon until she voluntarily terminated her employment on July 31, 2004. In the following months, three stylists left the salon the work for Ms. Pepe at La Bella salon and Ms. Pepe solicited clients of her previous salon regarding the opening of her own salon.
Ms. Piscitelli sued Ms. Pepe in Connecticut state court for breach of the non-compete agreement. Ms. Pepe however contended that the agreement was unenforceable because it: 1) lacked adequate consideration, 2) contained unreasonable restrictions, and 3) there was an adequate remedy at law, thus barring injunctive relief as an appropriate legal solution. The court rejected these defenses, found in favor of Ms. Piscitelli, and granted her request for enforcement of the covenant not to compete.
While the agreement did not increase Ms. Pepe’s compensation, paragraph ten created additional consideration because it obligated the employer, Ms. Piscitelli, to pay for “certain courses in professional education and training”. This benefit, according to the court, was adequate consideration in exchange for Ms. Pepe’s covenants. Furthermore, the court concluded that the covenant not to compete was reasonable with respect to the time and geographical limitations contained therein. The restrictions did not unnecessarily restrict Ms. Pepe’s ability to earn a living or secure future employment within the salon industry. The restriction adequately protected Ms. Piscitelli’s legitimate business interests while not excessively harming Ms. Pepe’s career opportunities. Lastly, the court disagreed with Ms. Pepe that there was an adequate remedy at law available for the case. The court held that Ms. Piscitelli met the burden of proof to show the need for an injunction and concluded that injunctive relief was appropriate for the case.
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: ability to earn a living, agreement, adequate consideration, career opportunities, competing business activities, current clients, hair and nail salon, salon, stylist, solicitng, restricted area, lease, employment agreement, time restriction, remedy at law, 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, future employment, misrepresentations, competing services, irreparable harm