Posts tagged with "Easton"

Court Enforces Non-Compete Clause Against Real Estate Agent

Leave a reply
Century 21 Access America v. McGregor-Mclean, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3239

Century 21 Access America is a national real estate company that employed Ms. Tori McGregor-Mclean as a real estate agent in its Bridgeport, CT office from July 2003 to June 16, 2004.  Her employment contract, dated July 7, 2003, contained a non-compete clause that prohibited her for a two-year period following termination from engaging in competing business activities within a fifteen-mile radius of 3850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT.  Ms. McGregor-Mclean voluntarily terminated her employment on June 16, 2004 and began to work for Buyer’s Capitol Real Estate, a company located outside of the fifteen-mile radius in Stamford, CT.

Century 21 did not have a problem with her new employment because the office was located outside of the prohibited area but issues arose when Ms. McGregor-Mclean began accepting listings within the fifteen-mile radius.  Century 21 sued Ms. McGregor-Mclean in Connecticut state court for violation of the non-compete clause and requested that the court issue an injunction to enforce the agreement.

The Court’s Decision

The court found that Ms. McGregor-Mclean’s activities with her new real estate agency were in fact violations of the non-compete agreement and it ordered that the provisions be enforced.  The plain language of the non-compete clause stipulated that Ms. McGregor-Mclean was prohibited from carrying out any direct or indirect competing business activities within the defined fifteen-mile radius.  She was in breach of the agreement because she accepted five listings within the prohibited area – it is inconsequential as a matter of law that her office was located outside of the fifteen-mile radius.

Under the agreement, she was prohibited from having a physical business presence and transacting individual deals within the defined area.  The court identified the unlawful breaches of the non-compete clause, concluded that the agreement was valid and reasonable, and issued an injunction to enjoin Ms. McGregor-Mclean from further violations of the covenant not to compete.

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.

Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Agreement for Potential Clients of Former Employer

Leave a reply
Webster Financial Corporation v. McDonald, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 169

USI Insurance Services of Connecticut, Inc., formerly Webster Insurance, Inc., employed Mr. William McDonald as a senior vice president at its Westport, CT office.  The company had Mr. McDonald sign an employment agreement dated February 11, 2003 that contained non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in the event of his termination.  The agreement prohibited Mr. McDonald from soliciting any of USI’s contacts that had been clients or potential clients in the twelve months prior to his termination and established a geographical limit of twenty-five miles within USI’s Westport office.

As for the time limitation, the covenant was applicable for the great period of two years following Mr. McDonald’s termination or as long as he received benefits from a deferred compensation plan.  Mr. McDonald resigned on September 21, 2007 and began to work at Shoff Darby, Inc., an industry competitor well within the prohibited twenty-five mile radius of USI’s Westport office.  At his new firm, Mr. McDonald proceeded to solicit and sell insurance products to USI’s former and current clients.  Additionally, he contacted several USI employees and urged them to leave the company to seek employment with Shoff Darby.

Enforcing the Agreement 

USI sued Mr. McDonald and asked the court to enforce the provisions of the restrictive covenant.  Mr. McDonald presented two defenses to the court, arguing that the agreement was overly broad and therefore unenforceable.  He claimed that the prohibition of potential clients and the potential unlimited duration made the non-compete agreement unreasonable and unenforceable.

USI asserted the validity of the agreement and emphasized to the court that it contained a “blue pencil” provision that authorized the court to amend the time and/or geographical limitation in order to comply with Connecticut law.  Mr. McDonald countered this argument stating that this legal procedure would require the court to essentially rewrite the non-compete contract, an act forbidden under Connecticut law.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of USI with regard to the issue of the agreement’s enforceability with its holding stating, “taking the covenant as whole, nothing on the face of the contract renders the covenant unenforceable as a matter of law”.  While deliberating about the claim that the prohibition on potential clients was unreasonable, the court stated that there is no direction or precedent from the Connecticut Appellate Courts and that the Superior Courts throughout the state were divided on the issue.

This court took the approach used in Cuna Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Butler (2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1623) that such limitations on potential clients are reasonable so long as they are “readily identifiable and narrowly defined”.  The court concluded that the potentially unlimited applicable duration of the agreement was not “per se unreasonable” because the agreement as a whole contained several other definitive restrictions such as the twenty-five mile radius from the Westport office and the limited group of clients for the anti-solicitation clause.

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.

Gender Wage Gap in Connecticut

Leave a reply

The Gender Wage Gap Task Force in Connecticut issued its report last month with both findings and recommendations on continued disparities between what men and women, on average, earn. In doing so, it recognized that there are multiple factors that are responsible for the gap in its view. It paints a far more complicated picture of the wage gap than some politicians suggest. As it detailed:

Understanding this inequity is not a simple matter. Many factors contribute to the overall wage gap including education and skills, experience, union membership, training, performance, hours worked and the careers women and men choose. However, even after these factors are controlled for, an estimated wage gap of 5-10% remains. The task force has identified six key contributors to the gender wage gap in Connecticut: unconscious bias, occupational segregation, lower starting salaries and positions for women, women’s slower career advancement, the existence of a glass ceiling and a lack of support for working families.

Reasons for the Wage Disparity

Mara Lee, from the Hartford Courant, does a nice job recapping some of the key findings. Her take?

The report says that researchers have determined there are two reasons for that disparity: women don’t negotiate salary offers as often as men, and there may be subtle biases among bosses, even ones they don’t realize they have.

The report gives an example of a study of students graduating from Carnegie Mellon with master’s degrees, which found that 57 percent of men negotiated salary offers and 7 percent of women did. The men’s salaries were 7.6 percent higher than the women. And that $4,000 was almost the exact amount more that people who negotiated were paid compared to those who didn’t.

What might we see as a result of the report?

There are a number of recommendations, but surprisingly few of them touch on changes to the legal system.

First, it suggests that Connecticut “align” its Family Medical Leave Act with the federal Family Medical Leave Act by expanding it to include companies with 50 or more employees.

If the General Assembly does take that up, legislators should consider narrowing the differences between the two statutes. For example, Connecticut gives employees 16 weeks of leave over a 24 month period, instead of the federal 12 weeks of leave every twelve months, which can be confusing at times and leads to strange results that allow employees to get 16 weeks of leave the first year and then another 12 weeks during the second year — far more than just the 16 weeks first contemplated under Connecticut law.

The report also recommends supporting paid leave programs, like those in New Jersey and California. Connecticut is currently studying various proposals.

Employers in Connecticut should remain cognizant of both the issues that this report raises and the legislative developments that may arise from it as a result.

–

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, place contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Contents provided by: Daniel Schwartz of http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement to Protect Software Company’s Confidential Information

Leave a reply
Weseley Software Development Corporation v. Burdette, 977 F. Supp. 137

Mr. Wesley Burdette worked for Weseley Development Corporation first as a Logistics Analyst and then as a Senior Logistics Analyst from May 1993 to September 16, 1996.  Weseley was a software development company based in Shelton, Connecticut whose focus product was a transportation and logistics management program referred to as TRACS (Tactical Routing and Consolidation System).  Mr. Burdette played a significant role in the development and testing of TRACS versions 3.0 and 3.1.  He worked with “customers and potential customers to evaluate, develop, tailor, and implement Weseley’s products” during his approximately three years of employment.

He gave Weseley his two weeks notice on August 29, 1996 and planned to switch companies to work for Manugistics for the marketing and sales of its product titled MTP.  Management reminded Mr. Burdette of the non-compete clause in his employment agreement that he had signed.

The most important covenants that he signed in conjunction with his employment contract were those not to compete or disclose confidential information.  The agreement was signed on January 14, 1995 after Mr. Burdette was allowed time to consult with an attorney regarding any and all of the agreement’s provisions.  The non-compete clause stipulated that he could not work for a competitor for a period of six months following his termination with Weseley or disclose confidential information for an indefinite period of time.

The company sued Mr. Burdette to enforce the non-compete and asked the court to enjoin him from further employment with Manugistics.  Mr. Burdette countered that the agreement was unenforceable because its provisions were unreasonable and that Weseley had only signed the agreement once litigation began.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Weseley and enforced the non-compete covenant, enjoining Mr. Burdette from working for Manugistics for a period of six months as stated in the language of the agreement.  It validated the agreement because there was adequate consideration in the form of “continued employment, an articulated paid vacation entitlement, a new entitlement to severance benefits, and stock options”.  Furthermore, it found the limitations to be reasonable such that they fairly balanced Weseley’s desire to protect its business and Mr. Burdette’s desire to still be able to pursue his career.

It was paramount that the court protected the company’s interests since Mr. Burdette had a great deal of access to proprietary research & development information that could have severely disadvantaged Weseley should Mr. Burdette have shared the information with Manugistics.  Although the court stated that there was no evidence that he had already disclosed confidential information, it held that he would inadvertently draw upon his knowledge gained while employed at Weseley and eventually disclose some amount, however small it may be, in the course of his new employment with Manugistics.

–

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.

Litigating A Non-Compete Agreement in Connecticut

Leave a reply

In Connecticut, the breach of an employment agreement by an employer is a recognized defense to the enforcement of a covenant not to compete.  The breach must be material. For example, if the employee were promised a bonus or stock options and the employer refused to honor the promise. In order for the breach to effectively waive the non-compete restriction, the employee must timely object to the breach by the employer, otherwise the breach is waived.

For more information, or to discuss an employment contract, non-compete, stock options, or bonus situation with an attorney, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or (203) 221-3100.

IRS 2014 Pension Plan Limitations

Leave a reply

On October 31, 2013, the IRS announced the following cost-of-living adjustments to certain dollar limitations applicable to employee pension benefit plans for 2014:

  • The annual benefit limit for defined benefit plans is increased from $205,000 to $210,000.
  • The annual addition limit for defined contribution plans is increased from $51,000 to $52,000.
  • The annual limit with respect to the exclusion for elective deferrals to a 401(k), 403(b) or 457 plan remains unchanged at $17,500.
  • The annual limit on annual contributions to an individual retirement account (“IRA”) remains unchanged at $5,500. The dollar limit for catch-up contributions to an IRA remains unchanged at $1,000.
  • The annual limit on compensation that can be taken into account under a qualified retirement plan is increased from $255,000 to $260,000.
  • The dollar limit for defining key employees in a top-heavy plan is increased from $165,000 to $170,000.
  • The dollar amount for determining the maximum account balance in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) subject to a five-year distribution period is increased from $1,035,000 to $1,050,000. The dollar amount used to determine the lengthening of the five-year distribution period is increased from $205,000 to $210,000.
  • The dollar limit for catch-up contributions for anyone 50 and older remains unchanged at $5,500, while the limit applicable to those participants under SIMPLE plans and SIMPLE IRAs remains unchanged at $2,500.
  • The limitation used in the definition of highly compensated employee remains unchanged at $115,000.

Employers who sponsor qualified retirement plans should review their administrative and payroll procedures to make sure the new limits are reflected as they must operate their plans in accordance with the new limits. The failure to do so could result in plan disqualification. Additionally, individual contributions that exceed the IRA limits may be subject to an excise tax.

Credit: Frank Rubinetti

–

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, place contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations on Dependent Care Expenses

Leave a reply

The IRS has issued proposed regulations under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) 21 regarding dependent care assistance expenses. (Code Section 21 defines when a dependent care expense qualifies for the dependent care tax credit.) For Dependent Care Assistance Plan (“DCAP”) sponsors, these regulations are important because they provide much-needed clarity with respect to what constitutes a qualifying expense under a DCAP.

A dependent care assistance expense will qualify for reimbursement under a Dependent Care Assistance Plan (“DCAP”) if the expense meets the definition of an employment-related “dependent care assistance” expense under Code Section 21(b)(2). This requires, among other things, that the individual has an “employment-related” purpose in paying for the expense – in other words, the individual must incur the expense so that he or she can be gainfully employed.

Proposed Regulations

The highlights of the proposed regulations are as follows:

Pre-Kindergarten Programs, Nursery Schools, and Specialty Day Camps Qualify as Dependent Care Assistance Expenses

The expenses of pre-school and other pre-kindergarten programs now qualify as dependent care assistance expenses.

The cost of kindergarten, and other educational programs above the kindergarten level, may not be considered dependent care assistance expenses since such programs have an educational purpose. However, the cost of after-school programs for children above kindergarten age may qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense.

Day Camps/Specialty Day Camps. The full cost of day camps, including specialty day camps that specialize in one particular activity such as soccer or computers, now qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense. (Overnight camp expenses still do not qualify since they are not considered employment-related expenses.)

“Indirect Expenses,” Transportation Expenses, and a Caregiver’s Room and Board now qualify as dependent-care assistance expenses

Transportation Expenses – to and from a day camp or an after-school program not on school premises – now qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense.

“Indirect Expenses.” Indirect expenses are expenses that relate to, but are not directly for the care of a dependent. Examples of qualifying indirect expenses include application fees, agency fees, and deposits may qualify if they are paid to obtain care for the dependent. Let’s say Jane places a deposit with Pre-School A to reserve a place for her child and subsequently decides to send her child to a different pre-school. By doing this, Jane forfeits her deposit with Pre-School A. The forfeited deposit does not qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense.

Room and Board. The cost of providing room and board to a caregiver may be considered an employment-related expense and therefore qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense.

Payments to Most Relatives for “Dependent Care” Do Not Qualify as Dependent-Care Assistance Expenses

The proposed regulations clarify that an individual’s payments to his or her child, spouse, or the dependent child’s parent (who is not the individual’s spouse), do not qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense.

However, if an individual pays his parent to care for his dependent children, those payments may qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense as long as the parent cannot be characterized as the individual’s dependent under Code Section 151.

Temporary Absences and Part-Time Work

Expenses Incurred During a Temporary Absence May Qualify as a Dependent-Care Assistance Expense. Prior to the proposed regulations, this was not the case. However, under the proposed regulations, an expense may qualify as a dependent-care assistance expense even if it is incurred while the individual is temporarily absent from work, for example, due to vacation or sickness. Although the proposed regulations have not specified the maximum duration of the absence, in two examples they note that expenses incurred during a two-day absence will qualify while expenses incurred during a four-month absence will not.

Part-Time Employees

If the part-time employee is required to pay for dependent care on a periodic basis, such as weekly or monthly, which includes both worked days and non-worked days, the entire cost of day care may constitute a dependent-care assistance expense. If, however, the part-time employee pays for dependent care on a daily basis, he or she can treat as dependent-care assistance expenses only those expenses incurred while he or she was at work.

Credit: Stefanie Kastrinsky

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, place contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Application of FINRA Rules & Regulations for Bank’s Employment Agreement

Leave a reply
Webster Bank, N.A. v. Cahill, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1672

Webster Bank is a regional commercial bank with business operations in lower New England that employed Mr. Daniel Cahill from April 11, 1995 to February 12, 2009.  He was hired as a teller in the bank’s Bristol, CT office and was promoted to a financial consultant in 2001 to work for Webster Investment Services, the securities division of Webster Bank.  The bank entered into a corporate arrangement with UVEST in 2007 and Mr. Cahill (and similar employees) had to sign a dual employment agreement.

The contract detailed the terms of his employment and contained multiple restrictive covenants.  Mr. Cahill was prohibited from engaging in competing business activities within twenty-five miles of his base of operations for one year following his termination and was subject to an indefinite non-disclosure clause for Webster and UVEST’s confidential and proprietary information.

Mr. Cahill faxed in a letter of resignation to Webster on February 12, 2009 and the next day began working for RBC Bank in its Hartford, CT office where he essentially performed the same duties as he had done during his employment with Webster.  Webster sued Mr. Cahill in Connecticut state court for the enforcement of the restrictive covenants contained in the dual employment agreement.

Mr. Cahill admitted that RBC was a direct competitor of Webster, that his new office is within the twenty-five mile radius prohibited area, that he had taken with him a list of 2,900-3,000 Webster customers, and had sent a solicitation letter on RBC’s stationary to all of those customers.  Of these solicitations, 350-400 accounts transferred their assets to RBC, amounting to a loss of approximately $5 million in assets under management for Webster.

Employment Contract Violation

Mr. Cahill admitted that he violated the terms of the dual employment contract but argued that the court should not enforce the non-compete agreement because he was a “licensed and registered securities dealer and a financial representative”, and therefore the rules and regulations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) governed and he had done nothing wrong.

He contended that under FINRA regulations, in an agreement referred to as the “Protocol”, he was permitted to take a copy of the customer list when he moved from Webster to RBC.  These regulations permit taking a copy of names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses but not account numbers.  The court found that the assertion lacked jurisdiction and was unpersuasive, and noted that FINRA was not controlling since neither Webster Bank nor UVEST were signatory members of the “Protocol”.

The court concluded that it did have jurisdiction over the case and next looked to whether the non-compete agreement was valid and enforceable under Connecticut law.  Webster had a legitimate business interest that the court held warranted protection in the form of an injunction to restrict Mr. Cahill’s activities.  An injunction, according to the court, was necessary to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the parties involved in the legal dispute.  The court held that the restrictions were reasonable in scope and did not overtly favor one party over the other.  After establishing a need for an injunction and the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court ordered the enforcement of the non-compete agreement.

–

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.

Form U5 – Employment Termination in the Securities Industry

Leave a reply

Broker-dealers, investment advisors, and issuers of securities routinely use Form U5 to terminate the registration of an individual whose employment has ended and to notify the appropriate jurisdiction or self-regulatory organization.  Employees are still subject to the jurisdiction of regulators for at least two years after the registration has been terminated and may have to provide information about the association with their former employer.  The section of Form U5 that may be the most problematic concerns the reason for the termination that must be provided by the employer.

Reason for Termination

If the employer elects to describe a full termination as “permitted to resign,” “discharged,” or “other,”, then an explanation must be provided.  No such explanation is necessary if the full termination is deemed “voluntary.”  Disclosure of the employee’s involvement in investigations, internal reviews, regulatory actions, criminal matters and customer complaints must also be made by the employer.

In many cases, an employer and employee may disagree on what led to an employment termination and on the circumstances of the departure.  A disparaging remark, untrue statement or misleading explanation on Form U5 can jeopardize the ability of an individual to continue working in the securities industry.  A prospective employer may pass over a job candidate who has what has come to be known as a “Dirty U5” from a previous employer.

Dirty U5s

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) does provide a forum for an employee to pursue arbitration against a former employer to contest a “Dirty U5.”  However, the best course of action is to avoid the problem from ever arising.  Registered employees in the securities industry are well advised to seek legal advice and counsel once it becomes apparent that their employment may be coming to an end.  In many cases, the disclosures made in the Form U5 by the employer may be mutually agreed upon before the employment termination ever occurs.

Should you have any questions relating to the Form U5, or employment issues generally, please feel free to contact Joseph Maya, or the other experienced education attorneys at Maya Law today at (203) 221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Technology Company’s Non-Compete Found Enforceable on Grounds of Protecting Employer’s Interest and Commercial Operations

Leave a reply
Xplore Techs. Corp. v. Killion, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2401

Xplore Technologies Corporation was a company engaged in the engineering, developing, and marketing of rugged computer tablets.  Mr. Timothy Killion worked as a Senior Sales Representative with the company from December 8, 2003, to June 2010.  As part of his employment contract with Xplore, Mr. Killion signed a non-compete and non-disclosure agreement that stated, “By accepting this offer, you agree not to exercise or participate in any activity directly or indirectly competing with that of Xplore Technologies, Corp.” for a period of one year.

In June 2010, Mr. Killion announced that he would be leaving Xplore to work for another company, later identified as DRS Technologies, Inc., a direct competitor.  In the years leading up to Mr. Killion’s resignation he was intimately involved in the development of a new product and a deal with AT&T valued at $20-23 million.  Xplore commenced a suit seeking an injunction to prevent DRS’s further employment of Mr. Killion and prevent the disclosure/utilization of any classified information regarding Xplore’s business operations.  Mr. Killion claimed that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable because it was too broad in scope.

The Court’s Decision

The Superior Court held in favor of Xplore Technologies, finding the non-compete to be valid and issued an injunction prohibiting DRS from employing Mr. Killion until a year after his resignation from Xplore.  The court found that the strongest factor that made the agreement enforceable was the employer’s interest to protect its commercial operations.  Non-compete agreements protect employers in the specific area in which they do business by restricting the disclosure of trade secrets, technical marketing, and financial information.  The court held that the non-compete agreement was a reasonable and binding way for Xplore to protect itself given the uniqueness of the industry, its products, and business activities.

The court struck down Mr. Killion’s assertion that the agreement was too broad with regard to time and space.  It held that the one-year period was appropriate and reasonable provided the length of Mr. Killion’s employment with Xplore and the nature of the company.  The lack of geographical limitations does not invalidate the agreement in this case.  The nature of Xplore’s business is heavily internet-based and its employees’ work is not confined to a specific office within a specific geographical area.  Instead, the geographical limitations become Xplore’s three direct competitors that conduct business in the same manner and that are involved in the development of similar products.

–

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.