Smooth Transitions

Smooth Transitions

Addressing the Legal issues arising from the departure of employees & Business breakups

The Beginning of the Year Employment Checklist

Posted in HR Issues, Uncategorized


As the New Year begins a couple of things to consider:

  1. Is the company employee manual up to date – any changes necessary? – The beginning of the year is always a good time to review those policies and procedures and see how they worked in 2018.  Often the year will show some deficiencies or problems with policies as they are applied.
  2. Are employee files up to date?  Make sure all employees have acknowledged receiving the most recent HR manual or any changes to the manual.
  3. Are company employment agreements up to date?  Make sure any employment agreements are updated or amended to reflect changes in ownership or term expiration.  Quite often those agreements are forgotten about and there is no agreement in place.
  4. Make sure employees have signed off on all non-compete, non-solicit, or confidentiality agreements.  Make sure you have signatures!
  5. Frequently the end of the year involves reviews.  Make sure those reviews are acknowledged by the employee and make it to their employment files.
  6. Do you have job descriptions for your employees?  Do you even need them?
  7. Are your independent contractors really employees?
  8. Is it time for some employees to move elsewhere?
  9. Get your lawyer to take you out for lunch so they can update you on any new employees issues coming in 2019 and so you can pick their brain about any other issues.

All the best in 2019!

The Beauty of An Employment Settlement

Posted in Age Discrimination, EEO Claims, HR Issues, Uncategorized


I remember when I was a younger lawyer the difficulty I had with clients settling lawsuits that factually and legally had little merit.  I remember the partner I worked for telling me that was the cost of doing business.  While I knew he was right that comment still bothers me to this day.  But the reality is lawyers cost money and the time and expense defending lawsuits can be distracting, especially when a company doesn’t have a legal department or is a routine player in employment disputes.

No matter how distasteful, at the same time a company is getting together all of the documents and identifying the witnesses that are key to defending a claim, the powers that be also need to evaluate the possibilities of settlement.  What does mean?  Defense counsel should be reaching out to plaintiff’s counsel early on in the process to determine what the plaintiff wants.  There are two things I tell my clients that I am generally certain of: (1) a dispute will cost more then you think; and (2) it will also take up more of your time then anticipated.

Now there are certain times where the company may need some discovery to be in a position to evaluate the claims of a plaintiff. But in many situations, dialogue with opposing counsel may give the other side a read into what the lawyer actually believes the merits of the case may be.  Trust me, a lawyer on a contingency fee does not want to spend time on a case that is marginal.  If it’s marginal they are going to want to resolve it, if not maybe the case as not as marginal as the company thinks.

Most cases are never going to trial.  That means there could be a summary judgment or more likely a settlement at some point in the process.  The earlier in the process that can be reached the better.

Notice Provisions for Texas Lawyers

Posted in Uncategorized



For some time Texas has been a hot market for lawyers.  Big firms from other parts of the country who want to shop here not surprisingly will hire lawyers from other big firms that are already here.  Many of the partners in these firms have notice provisions in their partnership agreements that require them to provide notice to their firm of their departure.  A recent Texas Lawyer article highlighted the issue:

Shearman & Sterling, which moved into Texas in March in Austin, didn’t open its new Houston office as fast as the firm wanted to this spring because Baker Botts held a group of oil and gas lawyers for 90 days. Another group of six energy partners from Baker Botts lawyers faced the same issue in 2017 as they were held for 84 days after they resigned and before they could  move to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher‘s new Houston office.

So before the lawyer can move to their new firm they have to provide contractually required notice – not two weeks.  It’s unclear whether the partners are paid/work during the notice provision.  That seems like a recipe for disaster when you have folks that want to leave but can’t for months.

The notice provisions are very similar to garden leave provisions. In the garden leave scenario the employee is paid not to work.  They provide notice then stay at home (while still an employee) until the notice runs.  A Texas court has never addressed the enforceability of one of these provision and the question remains whether it falls within the scope of the Texas non-compete statute.  Regardless, these can be very effective at preventing a departing employee from taking their business with them.

Will keep tabs on the migrating lawyer situations.  Maybe we’ll see a court of appeals provisions on one of these clauses.


Getting Out of the Way of A Settlement

Posted in Injunction, Non-Compete Agreements, Recent Cases


Non-compete cases that are well lawyered should be resolved early in the litigation process.  Why do I say that?  If the plaintiff is an aggressive former employer it will in most instances move for a temporary restraining order followed by an application for a temporary injunction in Texas state court.  In that process a lot of things can happen.  First, the parties will have appeared before a judge and gotten a flavor for how the judge will rule and what the judge thinks of each parties’ claims and defenses.  Second, there may be expedited discovery including document productions and depositions.  The judge may even order the case to mediation to avoid having to spend court time on a temporary injunction hearing – which is like a mini-trial.

Most importantly, both side will incur attorneys’ fees and in many cases a lot of them in short amount of time.  Injunction cases and expedited discovery are not cheap.  It all takes place up front and the client is likely to receive one large bill.  Point is they will have a flavor for the costs and will see more fees on the horizon.

By the end of all this the parties should know all the bad things the other side has done and merit of their claims and defenses.  Couple this with overall litigation fatigue (caused by time expended on the case and attorneys’ fees) and there is usually a good opportunity to have a settlement dialogue and get the case resolved.

What if that doesn’t happen?  What if the case just sits there, the plaintiff doesn’t seek an injunction or press for discovery, and there is no end in sight?  I had this happen on a case recently.  A year into the lawsuit, the case wasn’t moving a long, we were just starting depositions, and mediation was a long way away.  Then it happened – during the break in a deposition the two key players were left in the room together while the lawyers talked outside.  During the middle of attorney discussions I started to hear some heated argument – but it was good heated argument.  After months of the case going no where, the players were venting towards one another.  The attorneys went in to break it up but the players still wanted to talk.  We agreed everything was a settlement discussion cloaked in privilege and we left the players in the room to continue.  There were a few times we had to calm the sides down but that emotional venting had to happen.  Finally, they reached terms.  The lawyers papered the settlement and the case was over.

The point of all this is the parties always need to be looking to an exit ramp from the litigation highway.  You just have to be willing to take the exit even if means leaving two people in the same room who are upset with each other.  This won’t always work but it’s been my experience that there is nothing better than good, frank discussion.

ESOA Presentation

Posted in Uncategorized


Tomorrow, I have the privilege of speaking to the Executive Search Owners Association. Over the years I have had the privilege of representing placement professionals in a number of circumstances. Some tips:

  1. Make sure your engagement agreements/contracts make sense and are enforceable;
  2. Remember that non-competes and non-solicitation agreements in Texas can be enforceable;
  3. Screen your candidates to determine if they have entered into a non-compete or non-solicit;
  4. Remember that if someone you placed is sued it is likely that their new employer will be as well;
  5. Protect your candidate and client information – that information can be a trade secret;
  6. Make sure you are in compliance with the Texas Occupations Code;
  7. A little money spent on an attorney up front can save a lot of money down the road;
  8. Be factual when you talk about a potential employer;
  9. Don’t give legal advice; and
  10. If you sign an agreement prepare to have to comply with it.

Below are some resources and previous writings placement professionals might find of use:

Where are we going to fight? – Venue provisions in employment agreements.

Posted in Uncategorized


Whenever I draft or review an employment agreement (or for that matter any contract) one of the first things I look for is a venue provision.  Usually there is one, but if not you fall back on the laws of the state the party would like to bring suit in to see if venue works.  There is nothing that will take the steam out of a lawsuit then the contention it was filed in the wrong place. Drafting tip – make sure there is a venue provision.

So, assuming there is a venue provision it’s likely there is a choice of law provision as well.  Often times the venue provision will require an employee to agree to venue in the state/city where the employer is located.  The idea from the employer’s standpoint is it would rather enforce its agreements in the place where it is located and in most cases under the same laws.  The provision will look something like this:

Mandatory Venue Provision:  Employee and Company agree that any lawsuit arising from or related to this Agreement shall be filed in the state or federal courts of Dallas County, Texas.  Employee agrees that Employee consents to jurisdiction in the state or federal courts of Dallas County, Texas.

There are a lot of good things about making an ex-employee defend a lawsuit somewhere other than where they reside.  They will have to get a lawyer there and there is the headache of not being at home.  That said, it is also very difficult to push a non-compete case in a place where the employee doesn’t live.  First, off an employer enforcing a non-compete may seek a temporary restraining order.  Assuming the company obtained the TRO in Dallas against an employee that lives in Arizona.  The logistics of serving the former employee in Arizona can be daunting.  This is especially true when the company wants expedited discovery (depositions/documents).  I say all this to underline the concept that venue should be considered in the context of enforcement and how that enforcement will work.

The employer might consider a provision along these lines:

Mandatory Venue Provision:  Employee and Company agree that any lawsuit arising from or related to this Agreement shall be filed in the state or federal courts of Dallas County, Texas or the state or federal courts of the county the Employee resides in at the time this Agreement is executed as set forth below.  Employee agrees that Employee consents to jurisdiction in the state or federal courts of Dallas County, Texas and will not contest the filing of the lawsuit in Dallas, County Texas based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Something to consider!


Termination Opportunities

Posted in Uncategorized

For whatever reason an employee leaves, the exit interview (if that’s what the company calls it) or instance when the HR person in charge collects the employees building badge and any company property is an excellent time to remind the employee of their post-employment covenants.  We talked about agreements at the end of employment during the last post.  Let’s assume here that the employee has signed some type of post-employment covenant.  What should be on the employer’s checklist”

  1. Provide the employee with any previous agreement(s) – remind them of any obligations under the agreement(s) – ask them if they have any questions about the agreement?
  2. Tell the employee that the company takes these obligations very seriously and will enforce them.
  3. Obtain all company property, keys, phones, etc. and tell them their access to company email or remote-in processes are cut-off.
  4. Make sure they are being paid what they are owed in accordance with company policies – that payment may take place during the next pay day.

I have been involved in cases where an ex-employee “forgot” about their non-compete.  I believed the defendant because they did everything possible to violate the agreement as-if they had no idea it existed.  It would have saved everyone time and money if at the time of departure the agreement(s) and obligations associated with it were raised with the employee.  Even if a sit-down is not possible, put the agreement(s) in the mail or email.  Remove any excuses a departing employee might have if they decide to violate a post-employment covenant.

Non-Competes At the End of Employment

Posted in Uncategorized


Strictly speaking under Texas law it is hard to make a non-compete stick when it is first introduced at the end of employment.  Assume a situation where an employee signed a confidentiality agreement and non-disclosure agreement but didn’t sign a non-compete, non-solicit (customers), or anti-raid (employees).  Is the employer out of luck?  Maybe not.

For purposes of this discussion, assume that what I am about to suggest is not legally enforceable under the Texas non-compete statute.  Put another way, the employer is never going to sue the agreement and the employee is under no requirement to sign the agreement. They can simply walk – a non-compete based on past consideration doesn’t work.

So what about this – the employer tells the soon to be former employee they will make quarterly (choose the interval) payments of some amount as long as employee doesn’t compete, solicit and/or raid?  The payments can be structured whatever works best and will lead to compliance.  Maybe there is a “balloon” payment at the end to incentivize compliance.  The reality is if the ex-employee decides one day they want to compete/solicit and/or raid they can.  The ex-employer is not going to sue because it is almost a certainty that the agreement is unenforceable.  But if the employer gets the benefit of post-employment covenants for three or six months it might be worth it.  There is no one size fits all.

One wrinkle – there is the possibility that an ex-employee might sue to declare the agreement non-enforceable.  That seems highly unlikely.  First, employees suing employers over non-competes is rare.  Second, any somewhat savvy employee and lawyer will probably realize that the agreement is unenforceable and by giving up their right to payments, they can compete.  In fact, the agreement might be tailored in a way to address such a scenario.  Regardless, make sure to contact your local neighborhood employment lawyer if considering such an agreement.

Back to Basics: Texas Non-Competes

Posted in Non-Compete Agreements

Happy New Year!

As we move into 2018 get ready for some employee movement.  We usually see less employee movement at the end of year because many employers pay out bonuses and other metric related compensation as the year ends.  The same also holds true for a company making a hiring decision – they wait.  Because less folks are likely to move (see above) there is less hiring.  Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.  So what does this mean?  Dust off those old employment agreements because they may apply to an employee move.  There are always those starting a new job on January 1.

Over the next few posts will go back over some of the key Texas post-employment covenants.  To start off with, here is a link to a article I wrote for the Texas Lawyer a few years ago.  Texas non-compete law has not changed and the advice in that article remains the same.  We’ll discuss garden leave/notice provisions in our next installment.



Buc-ee’s and Its Unenforceable Employee Repayment Provision

Posted in Uncategorized


I usually don’t dive into the weeds of particular cases here because it can be tedious and boring.  That said, a recent case from the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston caught my eye.  First, the employer at issue is none other than Buc-ee’s.  If you’ve ever driven the highways of Texas there is a good chance you went by one and may have even stopped for gas or Buc-ee’s red velvet fudge (not that I would know).  The place is gigantic and has about everything in it one would need or not need for that matter.

The case at issue involved a management level employee that Buc-ee’s hired away from TGI Fridays.  Included in the employment agreement was an “Additional Compensation” provision.  It provides:

…Employee shall be required to work for Employer a minimum of 60 months … and shall also provide Employer with a minimum of 6 months separation notice.  In the event Employee does not provide the required notification, Employee shall be required to repay all of the Additional Compensation to Employer …

The additional compensation was a fixed monthly bonus of $1500.  Guess what – the employee quit after 36 months not 60 and received a demand to pay back the additional compenation. The employee responded with a lawsuit asserting the repayment clause was unenforceable and an unreasonable restraint of trade.  Buc-ee’s counterclaimed for the amount owed and they were off to the litigation races.  The employee lost on summary judgment and appealed.

The court of appeals first ruled that the repayment provisions were unreasonable restraints of trade.  It reasoned that the repayment obligation had no limitation tied to the geographical area the employee went to work or if the employee was actually competing.  The Court also held that the provision was unreasonable because the employee had to repay even if Buc-ee’s terminated the employment relationship for any reason and even if the employee didn’t work (no competition).  Not that surprising – the intent behind the provision was not to satisfy the non-compete statue it was to force a repayment.  The analysis from the court of appeals was straightforward.

Here the core issue was whether the repayment provision was a forfeiture provision or a non-compete?  A few years ago we discussed the Drennan case where the Texas Supreme Court addressed the issue.   Here is a really long quote from that case:

[n]on-competes protect the investments an employer has made in an employee, ensuring that the costs incurred to develop human capital are protected against competitors who, having not made such expenditures, might appropriate the employer’s investment. Forfeiture provisions conditioned on loyalty, however, do not restrict or prohibit the employees’ future employment opportunities. Instead, they reward employees for continued employment and loyalty. As we recognized in Marsh, employee stock-ownership plans have a purpose that is unrelated to restraining competition—linking the interest of key employees with the employer’s long-term success. Under a non-compete, the former employer can bring a breach of contract suit to enforce the clause. But under a forfeiture provision, the former employer does not need to take legal action because the profit-sharing plan belongs to the employer.

The court of appeals held the repayment provision was not a forfeiture provision because: (1) the employer was required to pay back the company even if the company terminated her; (2) the longer the employee worked the larger the penalty became; and (3) the money had been paid already, the employer was not retaining funds.

Forfeiture provisions can be a powerful tool for preventing competition but they are not as strong as a well drafted non-compete.  If crafted properly they should put the employee in the position of choosing additional compensation over working for a competitor.  We will continue to monitor these types of cases.  Here is a link to the case.

Enjoy your holidays.