Posts tagged with "unreasonable"

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in a Medical Partnership

Leave a reply
Fairfield County Bariatrics and Surgical Associates, P.C. v. Ehrlich, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 568
Employment Background

Doctors Neil and Craig Floch created Floch Surgical Associates in 1999 in Norwalk, Connecticut to provide medical and surgical services to patients.  They decided to gear their practice toward bariatric surgery and hired Dr. Timothy Ehrlich, a board-certified general surgeon and graduate of Louisiana State University School of Medicine, in 2002.  He was granted surgical privileges at Norwalk Hospital and St. Vincent’s Hospital (in Bridgeport, CT) and operated as the only member of the medical group to perform bariatric surgeries exclusively.  On January 1, 2006, the two Floch doctors and Dr. Ehrlich formed Fairfield Bariatrics and Surgical Associates, P.C. (FCB).

Each doctor became a third shareholder in the professional corporation and signed identical employment agreements that outlined the compensation schedule, termination protocols, and included a non-compete agreement.  The non-compete prohibited each doctor, for two years after termination, from practicing general medicine/surgery within fifteen miles of FCB’s main office in Norwalk and barred performing bariatric procedures at hospitals located in Stamford, Norwalk, Greenwich, Danbury, and Bridgeport.

Doctors Neil and Craig Floch voted to terminate Dr. Ehrlich in July 2009 and notified him of the decision in a letter dated July 30, 1999.  They justified his termination by claiming that he repeatedly “misrepresented the group” and had lost his surgical privileges at Norwalk Hospital due to non-compliance with the hospital’s Trauma Service requirements.

Violating the Restrictive Covenant

Dr. Ehrlich proceeded to form his own limited liability company, Ehrlich Bariatrics LLC, on October 22, 2009 and opened offices in Waterford and Trumbull.  Both of these municipalities are located outside of the prohibited area created by the non-compete agreement but he also continued to perform operations at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Bridgeport, an activity expressly prohibited by the restrictive covenant.

FCB sued Dr. Ehrlich in Connecticut court and requested that the court enforce the provisions outlined in the non-compete agreement dated January 1, 2006.  The court found in favor of FCB, determined that Dr. Ehrlich had violated a valid non-compete agreement, and enforced the provisions of the covenant not to compete.

The court stated that the challenging party (Dr. Ehrlich for this case) bore the burden of proof to demonstrate that the agreement was unenforceable.  He asserted that he had not been properly terminated and that the agreement itself was unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable.  The court rejected both of these arguments and concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable.

Improper Termination Argument

Dr. Ehrlich advanced the unconvincing argument that he was the victim of improper termination because the shareholders meeting at which the vote was taken to terminate his employment was not properly noticed pursuant to the corporation’s by-laws.  He essentially contended that the “lack of notice renders his termination a nullity”.

The court however disagreed with Dr. Ehrlich because a physician whose termination is being voted on is not entitled to cast a vote.  The lack of voting power for this matter meant that his presence was not required and he was not entitled to notice of the special shareholders meeting where the vote was taken.  The court ultimately concluded that Doctors Neil and Craig Floch had taken the proper and necessary steps in accordance with the corporation’s by-laws to terminate Dr. Ehrlich’s employment with FCB.

Unreasonable Provisions Argument

Next, Dr. Ehrlich unsuccessfully contended that the agreement contained unreasonable provisions and therefore the court was not obligated or permitted to order its enforcement.  Discerning the reasonableness of a non-compete agreement required the court to balance the competing needs of the parties as well as the needs of the public.

Furthermore, the challenging party must show that the provisions are unreasonable in scope.  First, the court established that FCB did in fact have a legitimate business interest that necessitated protection.  The company was entitled to protect potential new patients within a reasonably limited market area.  FCB was only concerned with future patients and did not seek to prevent Dr. Ehrlich from providing follow-up services to current or past patients.

Enforcing the Non-Compete Agreement

Next, the court addressed and cited a variety of case law that showed Connecticut courts’ history of enforcing non-compete agreements when they protect against “something other than mere competition”, including the use of customer lists, impaired of purchased good will, confidential data/trade secrets, use of information concerning potential clients in a limited area, or some other advantage the former employee acquired while working for the plaintiff company.  The court found that Dr. Ehrlich had greatly benefitted from his association with FCB and that his continued actions would negatively affect the reputation and business operations of his former employer.

Lastly, the court took time to address the differences between non-compete agreements for an employer-employee relationship and those for partnerships.  It held that since there was not unequal bargaining power or impaired ability to earn a living, the provisions were not unreasonable in scope.

The court noted that Dr. Ehrlich’s offices in Trumbull and Waterford did not violate the agreement and there were numerous hospitals located outside the prohibited area where he could find employment as a board certified surgeon specializing in bariatrics.  He had actually received encouragement from several doctors to apply for privileges at permissible hospitals, including the Hospital of St. Raphael in New Haven.

In light of Dr. Ehrlich violating a legally binding non-compete agreement that protected a legitimate business interest, the court ordered the enforcement of the restrictive covenant.

–

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.

Veterinary Doctor’s Non-Compete Invalidated When Terms Unreasonably Favor Employer

Leave a reply
Merryfield Animal Hospital v. MacKay, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4099
Case Background

Dr. Morgan MacKay worked as a doctor of veterinary medicine at Merryfield Animal Hospital, a clinic owned by Dr. Engstrom, from May 15, 2000, to April 16, 2002.  There were two employment contracts between Dr. MacKay and Merryfield that described employment from May 15, 2000, to May 15, 2001, and a second covering May 1, 2001, to April 30, 2002.  Each contained restrictive covenants and was supported by adequate consideration, specifically the second agreement listed a substantial pay increase.  The non-compete agreement prohibited Dr. MacKay from owning or working at another veterinary facility within seven miles of Merryfield for a period of two years.

Dr. MacKay voluntarily terminated his employment in a letter to Dr. Engstrom dated April 16, 2002 stating that he “could no longer tolerate the veterinarian service practices that were occurring at Merryfield”.  Following this decision, he began to work at New Haven Central Hospital, a veterinary facility located 6.2 miles from Merryfield, clearly within the seven-mile radius prohibited area as defined in the non-compete covenant.

Merryfield sued Dr. MacKay to enforce the terms of the non-compete agreement and curtail further employment at New Haven Central Hospital.  Dr. MacKay however contended that the terms of the agreement afforded Merryfield an unnecessary and unfair amount of protection, to the degree that it rendered the covenant unreasonable and unenforceable.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Dr. MacKay and held that the terms of the non-compete agreement “afforded greater protection to the plaintiff [Merryfield] than is reasonably necessary and the non-compete is unenforceable”.  The court supported its ruling with the argument that it had the obligation to ensure that the agreement should only afford a fair degree of protection to the interest of the employer while also safeguarding the interests of the employee himself.  The agreement went well beyond creating reasonable protections for Merryfield and unnecessarily restricted Mr. MacKay’s career opportunities and his ability to earn a living.

The language of the restrictive covenant was so broad and general that it prohibited several activities that Merryfield did not engage in.  For instance, the agreement prohibited Dr. MacKay from delivering veterinary care to horses, cattle, sheep, or swine even though Merryfield did not treat those types of animals.

Additionally, the wording of the agreement was so vague that it would have even prevented Dr. MacKay from working as a meat inspector.  Even the finite restriction of a seven-mile radius was deemed unreasonable given the specific circumstances of the veterinary industry in the area.  The language of the agreement would prevent Dr. MacKay from bringing in animals to New Haven Central Hospital if he was employed at a clinic that lacked surgical facilities, as was the case with the vast majority of the veterinary facilities outside the seven mile prohibited radius.

Conclusion

While the restriction of seven miles for two years is reasonable at face value, it becomes clear that it can easily transform into an incredibly unreasonable restriction in light of certain facts.  It was the use of vague language throughout the document and the unforeseen consequences that ultimately invalidated the restrictive covenant between Dr. MacKay and Merryfield.

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.

Balancing Policy Concerns When Determining Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreement

Leave a reply
Booth Waltz Enterprises, Inc. v. Pierson, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1912
Case Background

Speedway Distributors, Inc. employed Mr. David Pierson as a sales representative beginning in 1998 and had him sign a non-compete agreement as a condition precedent to his employment.  The agreement, executed on January 26, 1998, prohibited Mr. Pierson from soliciting Speedway customers or divulging their contact information to other parties for a period of one year following his termination.  Speedway’s primary business operation was distributing aftermarket chemical products in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and western Massachusetts.

On October 20, 1998 Booth Waltz Enterprises, Inc. acquired certain Speedway assets, most notably its customer lists/information and its sales representatives’ non-compete agreements.  Booth Waltz offered Mr. Pierson a job under the new corporate management scheme and asked him to sign a new non-solicitation agreement but he voluntarily terminated his employment.

Following his termination, Mr. Pierson started his own business, Hometown Distributors, which engaged in the same business operations and geographical area as his former employer.  Booth Waltz alleged that Mr. Pierson was soliciting its customers in violation of the non-compete it acquired from Speedway and sued for the enforcement of the restrictive covenant.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Booth Waltz, holding that the “defendant [Mr. Pierson] has engaged in conduct which is in breach of the restrictive covenant.  This conduct would dictate that the plaintiff [Booth Waltz] is entitled to enforce the agreement”.  Mr. Pierson contended that the provisions of the non-compete agreement were unreasonable, rending the agreement unenforceable, but the court rejected these assertions.  In handing down its decision, the court had to balance the necessity to protect the employer’s business interests and the employee’s right to earn a living.

The duration of one year was reasonable and was supported by the public policy principle that Booth Waltz had a right to protect the long-term relationships that Speedway maintained with its customers.  Additionally, the court concluded that the geographical limitation (Connecticut, Rhode Island, and western Massachusetts) was reasonable because it only restricted specific customers appearing on Speedway’s customer list, and not the region as a whole.

The court also addressed and stated that its holding did not interfere with public interest since it did not unreasonably deprive the public of a good/service for the sake of protecting a business’s recognized interest.  This case is a good example of how a court must balance multiple interests and policy concerns when deciding a case disputing a non-compete agreement between an employer and one of its former employees.

–

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.

Non-Compete Agreements in the New Haven Salon Industry

Leave a reply
Sabatasso v. Bruno, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 899
Case Background

Mr. Pascale Sabatasso owned SoHo Hair Group Day Spa where he had provided salon services for over twenty years and employed approximately twenty-two employees.  He hired Ms. Jody Brinkmeyer in June 2001, Ms. Jo Bruno in September 2001, and Ms. Cara Hanson in February 2002 to work as stylists.  Pursuant to his long-standing employment policies, he had the three women sign non-compete and confidentiality agreements as a condition to their employment.

The restrictive covenants prohibited the women for twelve months following termination from rending competing services within ten miles from the center of New Haven, soliciting SoHo clients, or soliciting SoHo employees.  This clause created a restricted area that included all or part of New Haven, North Haven, East Haven, West Haven, Hamden, Woodbridge, Orange, and Branford.  Ms. Sabatasso justified the need for such a restrictive covenant in order to protect the salon’s investment in the form of the expenses incurred associated with the training, education, and marketing of its stylists.

Breach of the Non-Compete Agreements

The three women voluntarily terminated their employment at SoHo on April 26, 2003 and began to work at Designers, a competing salon located in Orange, a city well within the restricted area defined by the non-compete agreement.  Mr. Sabatasso’s legal representation sent the women letters on May 15, 2003 stating that he would withdraw legal action if they immediately terminated their employment with Designers.

All three did in fact terminate their employment at Designers to pursue other employment options.  Ms. Brinkmeyer began to work as a stylist at a salon in Southbury (a city outside of the restricted area), Ms. Hanson lived in Woodbridge but did not work as a stylist, and Ms. Bruno provided styling services out of her home in East Haven and the homes of former SoHo clients, the majority of which were located within the restricted area.  Ms. Sabatasso proceeded to sue the three women in Connecticut state court and requested the enforcement of their respective non-compete agreements.

The Court’s Decision

The court granted an injunction with respect to Ms. Bruno but denied the requests for injunctions for Ms. Brinkmeyer and Ms. Hanson.  The holding stated that Ms. Bruno “shall adhere to all of the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement for a period of one year from the date of her voluntary termination”.  The court found that only Ms. Bruno had breached the non-compete agreement and that the continued activities of Ms. Brinkmeyer and Ms. Hanson were permissible and in accordance with the covenant.

The former employees presented several arguments as to why the agreement was unreasonable but the court concluded that its provisions were in fact reasonable and enforceable in the event of a breach, as was the case with Ms. Bruno.

Reasonable Restrictions 

SoHo, according to the court, as a matter of public policy was entitled to protect its proprietary property including its customers for a reasonable period.  One year was not so extreme or restrictive and as such, the court found this to be a reasonable restriction.  Additionally, the court concluded that the ten-mile restriction was reasonable given the facts of the case and the circumstances of the salon industry in the New Haven area.  Seventy-five percent of SoHo’s clients lived within the ten-mile radius and the company had an interest to protect its proprietary property within that area.

The court also noted that there were three hundred to four hundred salons located in non-restricted areas within a thirty-minute drive from the women’s homes.  Two of the women testified that a thirty-minute drive was acceptable and the court did not believe that this amounted to an unreasonable hardship.  This finding demonstrated that the provisions of the non-compete did not overly restrict the women’s ability to pursue their profession or find new employment at a salon that would not violate the covenant.

–

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.

Duration of Connecticut Non-Compete Agreement Reduced by the Court

Leave a reply
Access America, LLC v. Mazzotta, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2597
Case Background

Ms. Vassilia Mazzotta worked at Access America, LLC, a franchised office affiliated with Century 21 Real Estate, as a licensed real estate broker.  She sold single and multi-family residential real estate in conjunction with her job at Access America until she terminated her employment on April 20, 2005.  There was an employment contract between Ms. Mazzotta and Access America that contained a non-compete clause wherein it stipulated that Ms. Mazzotta could not “engage in or carry on directly or indirectly, a business similar to or competing with any business or products carried on by [Access America] within a fifteen (15) mile radius of 136 Berlin Road, Cromwell, CT (Access America’s office)”.

Shortly after her termination with Access America, Ms. Mazzotta began to work at ERA Innovative Realty, a competing real estate broker well within the fifteen-mile radius as defined in the non-compete covenant of the employment agreement.  Access America brought suit against Ms. Mazzotta and sought injunctive relief in the form of enforcement of the non-compete covenant.  Ms. Mazzotta conversely argued that she signed the restrictive covenant under duress and that its provisions were unreasonable, therefore making it unenforceable.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Access America, holding that the non-compete agreement was valid and enforceable but did amend its provisions in a way that lessened the occupational hardship placed on Ms. Mazzotta.  The court justified its holding by first discussing the public policy of the issue.  It stated, “It has long been recognized in this state [Connecticut] that a restrictive covenant is a valuable business asset which is entitled to protection”.  Access America, according to the court, had legitimate reasons for using a non-compete agreement to protect its business interest in the form of the money, time, and effort it spent to train Ms. Mazzotta.

The court found Ms. Mazzotta’s defense of signing the agreement under duress to be unpersuasive because the same agreement that contained the restrictive covenant also contained clauses that conferred considerable benefits on her in the form of a private office and a higher commission rate on real estate sales.  In addition, the court cited Ms. Mazzotta’s termination letter wherein she reaffirmed her obligations and prohibitions under the employment agreement.

Reducing the Duration of the Non-Compete Agreement

The one portion of the decision that Ms. Mazzotta found favorable was the reduction in applicable duration for the non-compete agreement.  The court reduced the two-year prohibition down to only one year.  During the legal proceedings, both parties were open to the possibility that the court could reduce the duration of the restriction if in the end it found the non-compete to be valid and enforceable.

Both parties referenced an earlier case, Century 21 Access America v. Nereida Lisboa (35 Conn. L. Rptr. 272 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)) where a court had reduced the duration based on the specific language of the employment agreement and specifically the non-compete clause.  This portion of the decision is very valuable as it shows that certain non-compete agreements, depending on the specific language used, are enforceable but the court has the authority to amend the provisions to lessen the restrictions placed on the employee.

–

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.

Excessive Geographical Limitation in Connecticut Non-Compete Agreement Found Unenforceable

Leave a reply
Timenterial, Inc. v. Dagata, 29 Conn. Supp. 180
Case Background

Timenterial was a company that engaged in the sale and rental of mobile units and had previously employed Mr. James Dagata.  The employment contract contained a non-compete clause wherein Mr. Dagata agreed not to “engage in any business venture having to do with the sale or rental of mobile homes or mobile offices in a fifty miles radius from any existing Timenterial, Inc. sales lot” for one year following the termination of his employment.

Mr. Dagata terminated his employment on June 1, 1970, and Timenterial claimed that he had been active in business ventures involving mobile homes beginning June 12, 1970, at an office located a mere one-quarter mile from Timenterial’s Plainville, CT office.  Timenterial commenced a suit for violation of the non-compete agreement and sought to restrain Mr. Dagata from further mobile home business ventures in accordance with the agreement.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Mr. Dagata and held that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable because the geographical restriction in the agreement was unreasonable and excessive.  At the time of legal proceedings, Timenterial had seven facilities in Connecticut, four in Massachusetts, two in Vermont, and one in New Hampshire.  The court applied the fifty-mile radius as stipulated in the agreement and held that this territorial prohibition was unreasonable.

The application of the agreement would mean that Mr. Dagata could not be involved in the mobile homes business in all or substantial parts of Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.  This placed excessive restrictions on Mr. Dagata and severely limited the opportunity for him to practice his occupation.  This excessive and burdensome characteristic of the non-compete rendered the agreement unenforceable and the court concluded that Mr. Dagata’s actions did not constitute a breach of the restrictive covenant.

–

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.

Court Enforces Non-Compete Agreement Against Connecticut Ophthalmologist

Leave a reply
Musto v. OptiCare Eye Health Centers, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2298
Employment Background

Dr. Anthony Musto owned an eye care services professional corporation with two other doctors from 1973 to 1996.  He worked as a private practice ophthalmologist in the greater Bridgeport area until the three doctors sold the practice to OptiCare Eye Health Centers, Inc. on July 31, 1996.  Dr. Musto owned one-third of the shares of the business, sold them to OptiCare for a profit of $590,000, and signed an employment agreement with OptiCare to work as an ophthalmologist on their payroll.

He worked as an OptiCare employee from August 1, 1996, to August 4, 2000, providing management with a one-year written notice of voluntary termination on August 1, 1999.  Following his termination, Dr. Musto proceeded to open a private practice office in Fairfield and perform surgeries at Bridgeport Hospital, including three extremely rare procedures: dactocystorhinostomy, blethoroplasty, and removal of eyelid tumors.

The Non-Compete Agreement

Dr. Musto signed a non-compete agreement with OptiCare as part of his employment contract and initialed each page to demonstrate he understood the agreement’s obligations and restrictions.  The restrictive covenant stipulated that Dr. Musto be prohibited from engaging in the practice of ophthalmology or ophthalmic surgery for a period of eighteen months following termination with fifteen miles of OptiCare’s Stratford or Bridgeport offices.

OptiCare sued to prevent further violations of the non-compete agreement because of Dr. Musto’s new practice in Fairfield, a location clearly within fifteen miles of the identified OptiCare offices.  The company sought to enjoin him from performing general ophthalmic surgeries at Bridgeport Hospital, also located within the geographical restrictions, but did not ask the court to prevent him from performing the three rare surgeries since he was the only doctor on staff at the hospital with the requisite expertise and knowledge to perform them.  Dr. Musto however argued before the court that the restrictions contained in the agreement were unreasonable and the court should deny OptiCare’s request for their enforcement.

The Court’s Decision

The court held that the non-compete agreement was in fact reasonable and granted OptiCare’s request for its enforcement.  The court granted the request, stating, “Where the context of the covenant not to compete is the sale of the good will of an established business, the courts recognize that enforcement of the covenant is necessary to prevent the seller from depriving the buyer of the value of the transaction”.  When OptiCare acquired Dr. Musto’s professional corporation, it purchased the asset of continued patronage from people who had been patients of that practice, and the court concluded that OptiCare was entitled to protection of this valuable asset.

When determining whether a restrictive covenant is reasonable, the court must determine if it affords more than fair and just protection to the party in whose favor it operates without unduly interfering with public interest.  The eighteen-month duration was deemed reasonable because it was short enough not to cause any unwarranted or extreme hardships on Dr. Musto’s ability to start another practice.  Additionally the court concluded that the fifteen-mile restriction was reasonable because it was not a distance greater than what was necessary to protect the good will asset that OptiCare acquired from Mr. Musto and his partners.

–

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.

Non-Compete Agreement Restrictions in Connecticut Funeral Services Industry

Leave a reply
Sagarino v. SCI State Funeral Services, Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1384
Case Background

Mr. Robert Sagarino’s mother sold the entire amount of stock in Donald D. Sagarino Funeral Home, Inc. to SCI Connecticut Funeral Services, Inc. for $700,000 and an additional $375,000 for the real estate where the business was located. SCI purchased the company with the condition that Mr. Sagarino and other employees execute a five-year employment contract and a fifteen-year non-compete agreement.  Mr. Sagarino signed his agreement on June 15, 1999, wherein he agreed not to operate or work for a funeral home service company for fifteen years within a thirty-mile radius of SCI’s newly acquired Donald D. Sagarino Funeral Home.  As consideration for the restrictive covenant, SCI agreed to pay Mr. Sagarino a total of $65,000 in one hundred twenty installments of $541.67.

Mr. Sagarino was terminated however on July 29, 1999 when he admitted to consuming alcohol while on the job.  In early 2000, Mr. Sagarino opened C.R. Sagarino Funeral Home approximately two miles from SCI’s funeral home.  SCI alleged that he advertised and sought clients from the same community that Douglas D. Sagarino had traditionally served and sued him to prevent further violations of the non-compete agreement executed in connection with the acquisition of Douglas D. Sagarino Funeral Home.

The Defense

Mr. Sagarino however presented a defense that the non-compete agreement was unreasonable and its terms were therefore unenforceable.  The party that challenges the enforceability of a contract ultimately bears the burden of proving to the court that it is unreasonable and unenforceable.  The court found in favor of SCI however, concluding that Mr. Sagarino had indeed breached a valid restrictive covenant and that SCI had successfully shown it suffered irreparable harm from the contractual breach.  A major component of the court’s decision was that the parties executed the agreement at the time of the sale of a business, creating a situation where it added great value to the business.

The Court’s Decision

The court held that the restrictions in the non-compete agreement were adequate to protect the good will purchased by SCI in its acquisition of Donald D. Sagarino Funeral Home and not unreasonable so as to severely disadvantage Mr. Sagarino upon his termination with the company.  The fifteen-year duration was reasonable provided the nature of the funeral services industry.  The customer return frequency in the industry is typically nine years, a timeframe that makes the fifteen-year duration a reasonable restriction for a non-compete between the parties.  The court also held that the thirty-mile geographical restriction was reasonable in light of the funeral services industry and its business trends.

The necessity of a non-compete in this case emanates from the funeral home name having a strong reputation in the local Italian-American community to which it catered its services.  Business in the funeral home industry is highly dependent upon personal relationships and the family name connected with the business operations.  The vast majority of clients are return customers or referrals from previous clients.  The thirty-mile restriction in the non-compete covers the area where Donald D. Sagarino Funeral Home’s clients have historically been located.  The court once again referenced the nature and business trends of the funeral services industry to conclude that the thirty-mile restriction was both reasonable and enforceable.

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.

Court Enforces Non-Compete Agreement for Niche Water Purification Company

Leave a reply
KX Industries, L.P. v. Saaski, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2444
Case Background

Mr. Bruce Saaski worked for KX Industries, L.P., a manufacturer and distributor of solid carbon block water filters, from December 1993 to April 24, 1996, as the company’s Technical Support Manager.  His employment agreement with KXI contained several restrictive covenants that prohibited him from using or disclosing confidential and proprietary information without the prior written consent of KXI, maintaining personal copies of the company’s confidential information, or working for an industry competitor.  The “industry competitor” restriction applied for one year after Mr. Saaski’s termination but the covenants pertaining to KXI’s confidential information were indefinite.

Mr. Saaski terminated his employment with KXI and began to work at Water Safety, a direct competitor, shortly thereafter.  Additionally, he failed to return copies of confidential information to KXI’s management upon his termination.  KXI sued Ms. Saaski for violation of the non-compete agreement he signed as part of his employment contract and sought a court injunction to enforce its provisions.  Ms. Saaski presented several arguments to the court as to why the agreement was not valid or enforceable.

The court rejected his assertions however and found in favor of KXI, granting their request for enforcement of the non-compete and confidentiality covenants. Mr. Saaski attacked the non-compete on the basis that its lacked consideration, arguing that there existed a prior employment agreement obligating KXI to employ him for a two-year period.

The Court’s Decision

The court held that Mr. Saaski did not present adequate evidence to prove the existence of a prior employment agreement and pointed to the language of the December 1993 agreement to show that Mr. Saaski gave consideration for the agreement when he agreed to the restrictive covenants contained therein. Furthermore, Mr. Saaski contended that the restrictions were unreasonable because they were overly broad in scope, specifically referring to the prohibition on working for a company “similar to” or in “competition with” KXI.

To determine if this language was in fact overly broad the court heard testimony from KXI’s Chief Executive Officer where he stated that there were only four competitors that the non-compete applied to: Honeywell, Culligan, Multipure, and Water Safety, Mr. Saaski’s new employer.  The court found this to be restricted in scope and not overly broad to disproportionately favor KXI’s interests.  The restriction applied only to a small section of the water purification industry and KXI’s CEO provided a plethora of companies that Mr. Saaski could work for without violating the non-compete agreement.

The court found the overall non-compete and confidentiality covenants to be reasonable and concluded that they did not place excessive restriction on Mr. Saaski’s ability to pursue his occupation and earn a living.  Accordingly, the court found in favor of KXI and enforced the provisions 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.

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in the Connecticut Insurance Industry

Leave a reply
Grayling Associates, Inc. v. Villota, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1859
Case Background

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 years 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’s Decision

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.

–

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.