Sam Adams Goes to Court

Posted on October 4, 2011 by Rob Radcliff

                                       Courtesy of Tuaussi 

 

Sam Adams Beer Company recently filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts against a salesman who it alleges went to work for a competitor in California.  The case illustrates the importance of a venue provision in an employment contract, which we recently discussed here. 

California is downright hostile when it comes to non-solicit and non-compete agreements for employees.  The defendant employee went to work for a California beer maker and lives in California, but his employment agreement with Sam Adams provides for venue in the state of Massachusetts, as well as a choice of law provision for Massachusetts law.  The Complaint alleges:

 

The Employment Agreement is governed by Massachusetts law. Paragraph 12, the governing law clause, provides that the “validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

The Agreement further provides that “Any dispute between Employee and the Company shall be litigated exclusively in the state or federal courts of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to whose jurisdiction Employee hereby agrees to submit.

 

Of course, this puts the employer in the position of trying to enforce a non-compete against an out-of-state employee.  That said, Sam Adams also sued the new California employer as well which pragmatically will make enforcement easier. 

 

The complaint is interesting because it focuses upon the inevitable disclosure doctrine.  It alleges that former employees had been exposed to proprietary information , including business strategies, that he will inevitably disclose during his employment with his new employer.

 

This is another example of a post-employment covenant with a salesperson, this time in the adult beverage industry.  We will continue to monitor this case.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Hurd, HP, and Inevitable Disclosure

Posted on September 8, 2010 by Rob Radcliff

                                  

As you probably know, HP filed a lawsuit against former CEO Mark Hurd in California seeking to prevent him from going to work for competitor Oracle.  The Wall Street Journal has a solid account of the lawsuit and analysis of the claims.

The lawsuit asserts causes of action against Hurd for breach of contract and and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. California law disfavors non-compete agreements, unlike Texas, so Hurd's employment agreements are not called non-competes but have the same effect. The “Protective Covenants” section of his employment agreement prevent Hurd from disclosing trade secrets and soliciting HP customers, employees, and suppliers. There is also a provision which has the net effect of a non-compete:

(a) No Conflicting Business Activities. I will not provide services to a Competitor . . . that would involve Conflicting Business Activities in the Restricted Geographic Area (but while I remain a resident of California and subject to the laws of California, the restriction in this cause . . . will apply only to Conflicting Business Activities in the Restricted Geographic Area that will result in unauthorized use or disclosure of HP’s confidential information).

 The crux of HP's claim is that because Hurd was exposed to trade-secrets and business strategies while CEO for HP he will disclose or use that information while working for Oracle - this sounds like the inevitable disclosure doctrine but is styled as threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. What is the doctrine? Here is Linda Stevens take:
 

There are circumstances in which trade secrets inevitably will be used or disclosed, even if the defendant swears that he or she will keep the information confidential. Courts applying the doctrine have differed over its reach and the circumstances required for its application, but, generally speaking, the doctrine applies when a defendant has had access to trade secrets and then defects to the trade secret owner's competition to perform duties so similar that the court believes that those duties cannot be performed without making use of trade secrets relating to the previous affiliation.


Texas Court do not recognize the inevitable disclosure doctrine but have come close – California does not appear to either. HP now seeks an injunction to prevent Hurd from working for Oracle based on his contractual obligations and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.

Hurd was forced out at HP after a sexual harassment scandal, but he was paid millions of dollars. It will be interesting to see how the Judge balances the equities on this case. Is the protective covenant enforceable under California law? (I’ll leave that to a California lawyer to determine.) Will the Court consider the fact Hurd has been paid a significant amount of money to sign these agreements?  Most importantly, will the Court believe he will disclose HP trade secrets at Oracle?  We will keep you posted.
 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,