Posts tagged with "breach of contract"

Is a Bonus a ‘Wage’?: Not According to a Recent Connecticut Supreme Court Decision

Is a Bonus a ‘Wage’?:  Not According to a Recent Connecticut Supreme Court Decision

Are you currently employed in Connecticut and have been promised a year-end bonus or had been promised a year-end bonus and never received it?   A recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision may affect the amount of protection you are afforded under Connecticut law if your employer defaults or has defaulted on that promise.

This recent case addressed the question of whether a year-end bonus promised by an employer is considered a ‘wage’ for the purposes of the Connecticut Wage Act.  Answering that question in the negative, the Supreme Court denied a Connecticut employee the ability to proceed with a wrongful withholding of wages claim that he had initially pursued after his employer failed to pay out what the employee had thought to be a promised year-end bonus.

Under this decided Supreme Court case, the amount of liability your employer will face for failing to pay out a promised year-end bonus will hinge upon how your employer defined the conditions under which a bonus would be paid.  If the conditions are specific goals set for you as an individual employee (e.g. a certain number of billable hours need to be reached), then under the Connecticut Wage Act your employer will be required to pay out that bonus as wages in accordance with their promise.  If they do not, you are afforded the protections of the Wage Act and can bring an action against your employer for wrongfully withholding wages.  If successful, it is possible that you could receive, by way of damages, twice the full amount of your bonus and any attorney fees incurred in pursuing the action.  In addition, due to the serious nature of such an offense, your employer could potentially be fined and/or imprisoned for their actions.

Unfortunately, however, if your employer was more ambiguous about the requisite conditions for a bonus, under this new case law, it is likely that they will be able to avoid liability for wrongfully withholding your wages.  If that is the case, while you can still pursue other causes of action against your employer, you will not be able to receive twice the full amount of your bonus or attorney fees.

The events of this recently decided case unfolded as follows:   At the beginning of the employment relationship between an employee and a Connecticut law firm, the parties agreed that the employee’s annual compensation would consist of a base salary and a year-end bonus.  The employment contract called for this year-end bonus to be based on factors such as seniority, business generation, productivity, professional ability, pro bono work, and loyalty to the firm.  The employee remained at the firm for several years and each year he received his salary and the promised year-end bonus.  When the employee left the firm he discovered that he was not going to receive the year-end bonus for that last year of his employment.  To try and recover what he had thought was a promised bonus; the employee commenced an action against his employer alleging breach of contract and wrongful withholding of wages.

The trial court dismissed the wrongful withholding of wages claim, determining that the year-end bonus was not ‘wages’ as defined by the Connecticut Wage Act.  The breach of contract claim, however, went to trial.  The Trial Court found in favor of the employee and awarded him damages in the amount of his year-end bonus plus interest.  On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding as to the breach of contract claim but reversed the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the wrongful withholdings of wages claim.  The Appellate Court determined that the structure of the agreement as to the year-end bonus meant that the bonus could have been classified as ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act and therefore held that the employee could proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

The issue of the wrongful withholdings of wages claim was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court where the Court decided that because the employee’s bonus was discretionary, (not ascertainable by applying a formula) it did not constitute ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act.  The employee, therefore, was not able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

Although the employee did recover some monetary damages through his breach of contract claim, it was not anywhere near as much as he would have received if he had been able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages action.

It is quite possible that after the release of this opinion many employers will revisit their bonus policies to make the language a little less precise or announce that their bonuses are discretionary in order to take advantage of the protections afforded under this recent case.  It is important, therefore, that as an employee you are aware of what kind of bonus you have been promised so that you know how strongly to rely on that promised bonus and what options are available to you if the employer refuses to pay.

If you have already been denied your year-end bonus and believe that it was a discretionary bonus, there are still ways in which you can potentially recover that lost income, such as the breach of contract claim pursued by the employee in this recent case.  If you have been denied a year-end bonus that was not discretionary and you had met the required conditions for receiving that bonus, you are still protected under the Connecticut Wage Act and can bring a wrongful withholding of wages action against your employer.  This action may allow you to receive damages in the amount double your bonus and possibly receive any incurred attorney fees.

If you have any questions regarding employment and labor law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He can be reached at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. Mr. Maya handles cases involving employment contracts, separation agreements, non-competition agreements, restrictive covenants, union arbitrations, and employment discrimination cases in New York and Connecticut.

Keywords: annual compensation, bonus, breach of contract, Supreme Court, Connecticut Wage Act, employment contract, liability, non-compete, non-solicit, wage, wages, discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office, New Canaan, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Darien, Greenwich, Westport, Weston, Fairfield, Maya Murphy

Covenants Not To Compete in Franchise Agreements

Covenants Not To Compete in Franchise Agreements
Pirtek USA, LLC v. Zaetz, 408 F.Supp.2d 81

Pirtek USA, LLC was a franchise company that operated as a business system “consisting of the sale, assembly and installation of industrial and hydraulic hoses, fixed tube assemblies and related components and services”. Pirtek entered into a Franchise Agreement with Mr. Irwin Zaetz in September 1999 to license him to operate a Pirtek business. The agreement contained a non-compete clause that prohibited Mr. Zaetz from operating or working for a competing business within a limited geographical area for a two-year period after the termination of the franchise agreement. Pirtek and Mr. Zaetz terminated their franchise agreement on April 22, 2005 and the parties went their separate ways. Pirtek was able to sell that particular franchise to another party, Ms. Ashely Geddes, while Mr. Zaetz and his son proceeded to operate their own business, Hose Medic. This new company provided many of the same services as Pirtek franchises and covered the same general geographical area. Additionally, the registered address for Hose Medic was the same one Mr. Zaetz used to register his franchise with Pirtek.
Pirtek alleged that Mr. Zaetz used his son’s company as a front to avoid the enforcement of the covenant not to compete. More specifically, the company alleged that Mr. Zaetz used Pirtek’s proprietary information to help his son base the new company on the Pirtek business model. Pirtek sued Mr. Zaetz in federal court and requested that the court issue a temporary injunction to prevent further contractual violations while the court tried the case. The court denied its request and refused to issue a temporary injunction.
Pirtek sued on three accounts, claiming that Mr. Zaetz breached the non-compete by 1) operating a competing hose installation and repair business, 2) infringing on its intellectual property rights, and 3) violating several post-termination provisions of the franchise agreement. The court found that Pirtek did not meet the burden of proof necessary to show that Mr. Zaetz was in breach of the non-compete. Pirtek asserted that their business interests were threatened by Mr. Zaetz’s use of the words “hose”, “assembly”, and a graphic of a cog when advertising and discussing the new company. This, according to this court, was an unfounded assertion because the words were too general to create confusion among consumers and negatively affect Pirtek’s business operations. Pirtek was not able to establish that it had suffered any hardship or was likely to do so in the future if an injunction was not issued. Imminent harm, according to the courts, is a requisite factor for granting a temporary injunction, and a court is not obligated to grant one if this crucial factor is missing.
The court pointed out however that the denial of the temporary injunction did not necessary mean that Pirtek would not be able to obtain a permanent injunction later. It counseled Pirtek that later stages of litigation could result in the enforcement of the covenant. It noted that Pirtek had some strong evidence to present and use in subsequent stages of the case but that its current request must be denied because it “failed to demonstrate irreparable harm”.
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.

Continue Reading

Covenants Not To Compete in Franchise Agreements

Covenants Not To Compete in Franchise Agreements
Pirtek USA, LLC v. Zaetz, 408 F.Supp.2d 81

Pirtek USA, LLC was a franchise company that operated as a business system “consisting of the sale, assembly and installation of industrial and hydraulic hoses, fixed tube assemblies and related components and services”. Pirtek entered into a Franchise Agreement with Mr. Irwin Zaetz in September 1999 to license him to operate a Pirtek business. The agreement contained a non-compete clause that prohibited Mr. Zaetz from operating or working for a competing business within a limited geographical area for a two-year period after the termination of the franchise agreement. Pirtek and Mr. Zaetz terminated their franchise agreement on April 22, 2005 and the parties went their separate ways. Pirtek was able to sell that particular franchise to another party, Ms. Ashely Geddes, while Mr. Zaetz and his son proceeded to operate their own business, Hose Medic. This new company provided many of the same services as Pirtek franchises and covered the same general geographical area. Additionally, the registered address for Hose Medic was the same one Mr. Zaetz used to register his franchise with Pirtek.
Pirtek alleged that Mr. Zaetz used his son’s company as a front to avoid the enforcement of the covenant not to compete. More specifically, the company alleged that Mr. Zaetz used Pirtek’s proprietary information to help his son base the new company on the Pirtek business model. Pirtek sued Mr. Zaetz in federal court and requested that the court issue a temporary injunction to prevent further contractual violations while the court tried the case. The court denied its request and refused to issue a temporary injunction.
Pirtek sued on three accounts, claiming that Mr. Zaetz breached the non-compete by 1) operating a competing hose installation and repair business, 2) infringing on its intellectual property rights, and 3) violating several post-termination provisions of the franchise agreement. The court found that Pirtek did not meet the burden of proof necessary to show that Mr. Zaetz was in breach of the non-compete. Pirtek asserted that their business interests were threatened by Mr. Zaetz’s use of the words “hose”, “assembly”, and a graphic of a cog when advertising and discussing the new company. This, according to this court, was an unfounded assertion because the words were too general to create confusion among consumers and negatively affect Pirtek’s business operations. Pirtek was not able to establish that it had suffered any hardship or was likely to do so in the future if an injunction was not issued. Imminent harm, according to the courts, is a requisite factor for granting a temporary injunction, and a court is not obligated to grant one if this crucial factor is missing.
The court pointed out however that the denial of the temporary injunction did not necessary mean that Pirtek would not be able to obtain a permanent injunction later. It counseled Pirtek that later stages of litigation could result in the enforcement of the covenant. It noted that Pirtek had some strong evidence to present and use in subsequent stages of the case but that its current request must be denied because it “failed to demonstrate irreparable harm”.
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.

Continue Reading

California Court Does Not Compel FINRA Arbitration of Statutory Discrimination Claims

California Court Does Not Compel FINRA Arbitration of Statutory Discrimination Claims

John Simmons v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, et al, 2012 WL 1900110 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012)

In January 2008, John Simmons (“Simmons”) was offered employment by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) as the Executive Director and District Manager in the Global Wealth Management Department. The offer letter stated that Simmons would be entitled to a $1 million forgivable loan, relocation benefits and a stock award. Simmons accepted the employment offer by signing the Morgan Stanley offer letter. In February 2008, Simmons and Morgan Stanley entered into bonus agreement and a promissory note that each contained a clause agreeing to arbitrate disputes related to these instruments in accordance with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rules. In March 2008, Simmons signed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U-4”) which also contained an arbitration clause citing FINRA rules. In May 2009, Simmons and Morgan Stanley entered into a second bonus agreement and a second promissory note, each of which contained the same arbitration clauses as the previous instruments. In March 2011, Simmons’s employment with Morgan Stanley was terminated. In September 2011, Morgan Stanley initiated a Statement of Claim with FINRA seeking to arbitrate its claim against Simmons for violation of the bonus agreements and promissory notes.

In December 2011, Simmons initiated an action in California state court asserting statutory claims for discrimination pursuant to Cal. Govt.Code section 12940(a) and for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”). Simmons claimed that Morgan Stanley employees made disparaging remarks to him regarding his religious beliefs because he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Simmons also alleged that, despite his high level of performance, he was not paid in accordance with the terms of his employment agreement. Finally, the complaint also alleged that, in February 2011, shortly before his termination, Simmons informed his supervisor that he was aware of the fact that he was paid less than other co-workers who performed similar duties but who did not share his religious beliefs. Simmons’s complaint stated that these discrimination claims were “inextricably related” to Morgan Stanley’s allegations that he violated the two promissory notes because he was “illegally terminated before he was able to fully perform his obligations thereunder.” In addition to the two statutory discrimination claims, Simmons’s complaint also asserted non-statutory claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, fraud, and breach of contract.

Morgan Stanley removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and filed motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Simmons filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asserting that he should not be compelled to arbitrate the claims that Morgan Stanley filed with FINRA in September 2011. Simmons presented five distinct legal arguments for why he should not be compelled to arbitrate with Morgan Stanley. The federal court dedicated the most discussion to Simmons’s argument that the arbitration agreements which he allegedly entered into did not encompass his statutory discrimination claims.

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, embodies both a fundamental principle that arbitration is based in contract and a federal policy favoring arbitration. A written arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable,” unless the arbitration agreement can be invalidated by a generally applicable contract defense, such as fraud, duress and unconsionability. 9 U.S.C. §2. Therefore, federal courts deciding motions to compel or stay arbitration examine (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists; and (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts apply state contract law to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether such agreement is enforceable. Only if both findings are affirmative can a federal court enforce an arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.

Causes of action premised on statutory rights are just as subject to contractual arbitration agreements as non-statutory common law claims. However, Congress may pass federal legislation that removes certain claims from the purview of the FAA. Precedent within the Ninth Circuit is that “a Title VII plaintiff may only be forced to forego her statutory remedies and arbitrate her claims if she has knowingly agreed to submit such disputes to arbitration.” Renteria v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 113 F.3d 1104, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1997)(citing Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299, 1305 (9th Cir.1994)). Both the public policy of protecting victims of sexual discrimination and the Congressional intent motivating Title VII legislation required that there be a knowing waiver of statutory remedies for civil rights violations, including employment discrimination based on gender. Id. at 1108. An earlier case within the Ninth Circuit held that parallel state anti-discrimination laws were made part of the Title VII enforcement scheme. Lai, 42 F.3d at 1301 n.1. Because the agreements to arbitrate in the February 2008 and May 2009 promissory notes and bonus agreements did not explicitly state that Simmons waived his right to a jury trial on claims of statutory employment discrimination, the court refused to find that Simmons knowingly waived his statutory remedies on these claims. Therefore, the court concluded that these arbitration provisions did not encompass Simmons’s first claim for violation of Cal. Govt. Code section 12940(a) and his second claim for Title VII violation. However, the court determined that Simmons’s remaining non-statutory claims were encompassed by the existing arbitration agreements.

An arbitration provision may be challenged “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Under California law, a contract clause is unenforceable only if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers, 485 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th Cir.2007) Procedural unconscionability analysis focuses on the oppression or surprise of a contract clause. The court found that the arbitration provisions at issue contain a minimal element of procedural unconscionability because they were standard FINRA agreements and clearly visible. Substantive unconscionability considers the effect of the contract clause, specifically whether the clause is so one-sided as to shock the conscience. Id. at 1075. The court found that the arbitration provisions were substantively unconscionable because the rules of FINRA may require Simmons to pay hearing session fees in excess of what he would pay in court. However, the single substantively unconscionable provision can be severed from the arbitration agreements; therefore, the court held that the arbitration agreements in the February 2008 and May 2009 promissory note and bonus agreements were enforceable once the unconscionable provision was severed.

The court granted Morgan Stanley’s motion to compel arbitration on Simmons’s non-statutory claims pursuant to the arbitration provisions set out in the February 2008 and May 2009 promissory note and bonus agreements. Likewise, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, the court granted Morgan Stanley’s motion to stay litigation on these claims pending arbitration. Because the court found that valid arbitration provisions exist, it denied Simmons’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

With respect to Simmons’s first two claims of employment discrimination under California and federal statutes, the court denied Morgan Stanley’s motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Simmons was permitted to litigate these claims in federal district court.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Federal Appellate Court Affirms Lower Court Ruling Not to Vacate FINRA Award

Federal Appellate Court Affirms Lower Court Ruling Not to Vacate FINRA Award

Javier Aviles v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 435 Fed.Appx. 824 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Javier Aviles (“Aviles”) appealed a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida that confirmed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award of $1.4 million in favor of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Charles Schwab”). The appellate court affirmed the district court ruling.

In 2007, Aviles left his employment with Charles Schwab to join Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (“BAI”). Later that year, Charles Schwab came to believe that Aviles was improperly soliciting its clients. Schwab filed a Statement of Claims with FINRA against both Aviles and BAI, alleging multiple claims arising from Aviles’s resignation from Charles Schwab and his subsequent employment with BAI: breach of contract, misappropriation and misuse of trade secrets, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contractual and business relations and unfair competition. BAI was later dismissed from the arbitration proceedings. In April 2009, the arbitration panel entered an award finding Aviles liable to Charles Schwab for $1.4 million.

Aviles filed a timely motion to vacate the arbitration award in state court, and Charles Schwab removed to federal court. After removal, Aviles filed a motion to amend in order to add a new claim of arbitrator bias. The district court found that the grounds for vacating the award set out in the original motion were without merit. Additionally, the district court found that the amended motion was not filed in a timely manner and did not relate back to the original motion. Finally, the district court found that the claim of arbitrator bias contained in the proposed amended motion also failed to warrant vacatur of the arbitration award.

Appellate courts do not use a different legal standard to review arbitration related judicial decisions: district court findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and district court legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), provides limited statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award, including where arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or where there was “evident partiality” or corruption in the arbitrator.

When a party seeks vacatur by challenging an evidentiary decision of the arbitration panel, he must show that the arbitrator’s refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence prejudiced the rights of the parties to the arbitration’s proceedings. Rosensweig v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 494 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2007). Aviles argued that the arbitrators refused to hear evidence material to the controversy because the arbitration panel excluded unsworn declarations completed by former Charles Schwab clients who had followed Aviles to BAI. Aviles asserted that these were material to the controversy because they demonstrated that the clients decided to transfer their accounts to BAI because it was in their personal best interest to maintain the relationship with Aviles. The chair of the arbitration panel stated that he would not allow documents that were not sworn or authenticated; however, he would sign subpoenas to allow Aviles to present this evidence in an acceptable manner and would also permit telephonic testimony if someone was out-of-town or otherwise unable to attend the hearings. The appellate court determined that the exclusion of the unsworn declarations did not prejudice Aviles’s right to present all evidence pertinent and material to the controversy. The chair of the arbitration panel offered Aviles alternate avenues to submit this evidence, and Aviles decided not to avail himself of those options. Therefore, the district court did not err in its ruling that the arbitration award could not be vacated on the grounds that arbitrators refused to hear evidence.

When a party seeks vacatur by challenging the impartiality of the arbitration panel, he must show that the alleged partiality is “direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain and speculative.” Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., 146 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 1998). Aviles presented an affidavit from a FINRA arbitrator not serving on his panel indicating that the chair of the arbitration panel made statements illustrating a clear bias against him. Specifically, the affidavit alleges that the chair stated that when a court enters a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order against a financial advisor prior to arbitration, the arbitrator’s only remaining task is to quantify and award damages. Aviles had been served with a preliminary injunction prior to the arbitration proceedings. The court found that the statements in the affidavit did not indicate that the chair of the arbitration panel was biased against Aviles. According to the court, the affidavit at most illustrated that the chair of the arbitration panel had an incorrect understanding of a legal issue, which is not enough to demonstrate bias or hostility toward a party. Therefore, the district court did not err in its ruling that the arbitration award could not be vacated on grounds of arbitrator bias.

Because the district court did not err in ruling that there were insufficient grounds to vacate the arbitration award on the basis of refusal to hear evidence and arbitrator bias, the appellate court affirmed the district court ruling denying Aviles’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA, arbitration or employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in the Connecticut Insurance Industry

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in the Connecticut Insurance Industry
Grayling Associates, Inc. v. Villota, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1859

Grayling Associates, Inc., an executive recruiting agency for large national insurance companies, employed Mr. Albert Villota from October 2002 to April 8, 2004. The parties executed a non-compete agreement at the start of Mr. Villota’s employment that prohibited him from working at a competing firm within a one hundred mile radius of Grayling’s Connecticut office for a period of two year after his termination. He began to work at a direct competitor, Park Avenue Group, Inc. (PAG), after he voluntarily terminated his employment with Grayling. The company sued Mr. Villota in Connecticut state court and sought the enforcement of the provisions contained in the non-compete agreement.
The court found in favor of Grayling and granted the company’s request for injunctive relief. It enjoined Ms. Villota from working at PAG or other companies in competition with Grayling until April 8, 2006, the end of the two-year period as stipulated in the non-compete agreement. The court went on to confirm that the time and geographical restrictions in the agreement were reasonable so that they properly balanced the interests of the parties.
The major point of contention in the case focused on the one hundred mile radius restriction. Grayling was based in Hartford, referred to by many in the business world as the “insurance capital of the world” and as such, the nature of its services was very dependent on its location and proximity to the city. Many of the nation’s most prominent insurance firms have their headquarters in Hartford and Mr. Villota’s actions within the vicinity of the city could negatively affect Grayling’s business interests and operations. Grayling noted that the non-compete agreement allowed for the application of the “blue pencil rule” that would allow the court to modify the terms of the geographical restriction. The court held that the restriction was enforceable as stated in the agreement and enforced the one hundred mile radius provision to protect Grayling’s legitimate interests.
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.

Continue Reading