Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Brett Jens resigned from his position at Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, and subsequently joined a competitor, J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis filed a lawsuit against Jens and Simplot, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement and to prevent Simplot’s alleged tortious interference with the agreement. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the restrictive covenants were no longer enforceable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Jens. The court found that the restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement did not survive past the agreement’s expiration date of February 28, 2010. Wilbur-Ellis appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the restrictive covenants were intended to begin when Jens’s employment ended. Simplot cross-appealed, contending that Wilbur-Ellis could not enforce the restrictive covenants because the employer in the agreement was Wilbur-Ellis Air, LLC, not Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the restrictive covenants did not survive the expiration of the employment agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement did not contain a survival clause or any language indicating that the restrictive covenants were intended to extend beyond the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits, which is the most significant factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Jens" on Justia Law

Cheryl Butler was hired as an assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 2011. After a mandatory third-year performance review, her contract was renewed, and she became eligible for tenure consideration in the fall semester of 2015. Due to illness, Butler requested an extension of the tenure vote, which was denied, but she was later granted leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for the spring semester of 2016. Her tenure committee, chaired by Professor Roy Anderson, concluded that Butler met tenure standards for scholarship and service but not teaching. Consequently, the law faculty voted not to recommend tenure, and Butler's appeals to the SMU Law School Dean and the Provost were unsuccessful. Butler completed the 2016-2017 academic year without teaching any classes.Butler filed a lawsuit against SMU and several of its employees, alleging racially discriminatory tenure standards and processes, and retaliation for her internal complaints about race, disability, and FMLA discrimination. She brought federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title IX, and the FMLA. Additionally, she asserted state-law discrimination and retaliation claims under Texas Labor Code Chapter 21, along with state common law claims for breach of contract and negligent supervision. Against the employee defendants, she claimed defamation, conspiracy to defame, and fraud.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants, citing preemption by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. The court held that the gravamen of these claims was unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, which Chapter 21 specifically addresses. Butler appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding whether Chapter 21 preempts common law defamation and fraud claims against employees based on the same conduct as discrimination claims against the employer.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Chapter 21 does not preempt common law defamation and fraud claims against employees. The court reasoned that Chapter 21 subjects only employers to liability for discriminatory and retaliatory conduct and does not immunize individuals from liability for their own tortious actions. Therefore, Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants are not foreclosed by Chapter 21. View "BUTLER v. COLLINS" on Justia Law

Matthew Moriarty, the defendant, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing his amended counterclaim against Evoqua Water Technologies LLC and Neptune-Benson, LLC. Moriarty's counterclaim sought declaratory relief and tort damages, alleging violations of a non-compete agreement he signed in 2010 while employed by Neptune-Benson, Inc. (NBI). Evoqua acquired Neptune-Benson in 2016 and hired Moriarty in 2017. The plaintiffs sued Moriarty in 2018 for breaching the 2010 agreement, among other claims, and obtained a preliminary injunction in 2019 to enforce the agreement.The Superior Court dismissed Moriarty's counterclaim, citing the litigation privilege for statements made during judicial proceedings. Moriarty's counterclaim included claims for emotional distress, declaratory judgments, constructive discharge, misrepresentation, and interference with business relations, based on alleged false testimony by an Evoqua executive during the preliminary injunction hearing.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal. The Court held that the litigation privilege protected the executive's testimony, barring Moriarty's claims for emotional distress, misrepresentation, and interference with business relations. The Court also found Moriarty's declaratory judgment claim moot, as the non-compete agreement had expired in 2020, and his constructive discharge claim failed to state a valid cause of action. The Court concluded that Moriarty did not demonstrate that his working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Thus, the dismissal of Moriarty's amended counterclaim was upheld. View "Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. Moriarty" on Justia Law

Larry Lawson, former CEO of Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., retired and entered into a Retirement Agreement with Spirit, which allowed him to continue vesting in long-term incentive stock awards as if he were an active employee. This agreement was conditioned on his compliance with a non-competition covenant from his original Employment Agreement. Lawson later engaged with a hedge fund, Elliott Management, which was involved in a proxy contest with Arconic, a competitor of Spirit. Spirit deemed this a violation of the non-competition covenant and ceased payments and stock vesting under the Retirement Agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas held a bench trial and found that Lawson had not violated the non-competition covenant, ruling in his favor. Spirit appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Lawson had breached the covenant and remanded the case to determine the enforceability of the covenant under Kansas law.On remand, the district court found the non-competition covenant enforceable without applying the reasonableness test from Weber v. Tillman, concluding that the covenant was a condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits, not a traditional non-compete. The court severed the injunctive enforcement mechanism from the covenant, leaving only the condition precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, predicting that the Kansas Supreme Court would not apply the Weber reasonableness test to a non-competition condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits. The court also denied Lawson's motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court, finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue. View "Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems" on Justia Law

Robert Caldwell was recruited by Champlain College's then-president Don Laackman in September 2016 and worked as Vice President of Advancement and later as Chief Advancement Officer from January 2017 to September 2019. His role was primarily as chief fundraiser. In fiscal year 2018, he missed his fundraising goal by approximately seventeen percent, and in fiscal year 2019, he missed his goal by more than 56 percent, resulting in a shortfall of over 2.2 million dollars. In May 2019, Caldwell was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and informed President Laackman of his diagnosis. Laurie Quinn replaced Laackman as interim-president in June 2019 and discussed Caldwell's performance with him in July 2019. Caldwell mentioned he was dealing with health issues. In September 2019, Quinn fired Caldwell, citing his poor fundraising performance.Caldwell sued Champlain College in March 2021, alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) and promissory estoppel. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division granted summary judgment in favor of Champlain College on both claims. Caldwell appealed the decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework for assessing disability discrimination claims and found that Champlain College provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Caldwell's termination—his failure to meet fundraising goals. Caldwell failed to provide evidence that this reason was pretextual. Additionally, the court found that Caldwell did not present any evidence of a specific and definite promise that would support his promissory estoppel claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Champlain College. View "Caldwell v. Champlain College Inc." on Justia Law

Billy Ford worked as a full-time security guard for Parkwest Casino Lotus from September 2018 to December 2021. Upon hiring, Ford signed an arbitration agreement that excluded claims for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, certain administrative complaints, ERISA claims, and "representative claims under [PAGA]." In February 2022, Ford filed a complaint against Parkwest under PAGA, alleging Labor Code violations, including mandatory off-the-clock health screenings and inaccurate wage statements. Parkwest moved to compel arbitration of Ford's individual PAGA claims and to dismiss the representative PAGA claims, citing Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied Parkwest's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement specifically excluded all PAGA claims. Parkwest appealed, arguing that the agreement was ambiguous regarding the exclusion of individual PAGA claims and that such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of arbitration.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement unambiguously excluded all PAGA claims, including individual claims. The court reasoned that the language of the agreement and the circumstances under which it was executed indicated that the parties intended to exclude all PAGA claims from arbitration. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying Parkwest's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ford v. The Silver F" on Justia Law

Douglas Ramsey, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, Sheet Pile, L.L.C., for breach of his employment agreement and a promissory note under which he had loaned the company money. Sheet Pile counterclaimed for breach of the employment agreement and sought an injunction to force Ramsey to return confidential information. Ramsey largely succeeded at trial, receiving an award for prejudgment interest and the denial of Sheet Pile’s requested injunction. Sheet Pile appealed, challenging the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, the grant of prejudgment interest, and the denial of injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas oversaw the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Ramsey, awarding him the final $5,000 of his salary and $155,878.47 in damages on the loan. The jury also found that Ramsey breached the employment agreement but was not liable due to Sheet Pile’s prior material breach. After the trial, the district court awarded Ramsey prejudgment interest and denied Sheet Pile’s request for a permanent injunction. Sheet Pile filed a post-judgment motion reiterating its arguments, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions on the jury instructions and the finding of prior material breach. However, it vacated the award of prejudgment interest, finding that the jury had improperly included interest in its damages award, leading to a double recovery. The court remanded the case for the district court to offer a remittitur based on the amount owed on the loan as of the date Ramsey filed suit. The court also instructed the district court to consider an injunction requiring Ramsey to return any documents containing confidential information. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramsey v. Sheet Pile" on Justia Law

Barton Hankins was hired by Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC in 2019 as Chief Operating Officer and was offered a deferred compensation plan (DCP). After four years, Hankins resigned and sought compensation under the DCP, which Crain denied. Hankins then filed a lawsuit under the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to claim his benefits. The DCP stipulated that Hankins could earn a percentage of Crain’s fair market value upon his exit, with full vesting at five years. Having served four years, Hankins was entitled to 80% of the benefits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted judgment in favor of Hankins, concluding that the DCP did not require the creation of an Employment Agreement or a Confidentiality, Noncompete, and Nonsolicitation Agreement for enforceability. The court found that Crain’s claims of misconduct by Hankins were unsubstantiated and awarded Hankins attorney’s fees, determining that Crain’s conduct was sufficiently culpable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Crain’s interpretation of the DCP was unreasonable. The court found that the DCP’s Article 4, which mentioned the Employment and Confidentiality Agreements, did not create a condition precedent but rather a condition subsequent. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, noting that Crain’s actions lacked merit and were raised only after Hankins sought his vested compensation. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Hankins v. Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Freedom Vans LLC, a company that converts and customizes vans into mobile houses, hired Jeremy David and Mark Springer. David, a self-taught carpenter, was hired in 2019 and later promoted to foundations manager. Springer, an automotive and maritime mechanic, was hired in 2020 as an electrician. Both employees earned less than twice the minimum wage and signed a noncompete agreement prohibiting them from engaging in any business that competed with Freedom Vans. They claimed they declined additional work offers due to fear of termination and legal action. They stopped working for Freedom Vans in 2021.David and Springer filed a class action lawsuit in 2022, alleging the noncompete agreement violated chapter 49.62 RCW, which regulates noncompete clauses in employment contracts. They sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. The superior court granted summary judgment to Freedom Vans, reasoning that RCW 49.62 does not restrict an employer’s right to require employee loyalty and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The court denied Freedom Vans' request for attorney fees. Both parties appealed.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that noncompete agreements for employees earning less than twice the minimum wage must be reasonable and narrowly construed in light of the legislature’s intent to protect low wage workers and promote workforce mobility. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that prohibiting employees from providing any kind of assistance to competitors exceeds a narrow construction of the duty of loyalty. The case was remanded to the superior court to determine the reasonableness of the noncompete agreement and assess damages and attorney fees. View "Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, sued the state seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that their wage claims were viable and that the trial court improperly decided a disputed question of fact.The trial court, Solano County Superior Court, sustained the demurrer on the grounds that the activities in question were not compensable under the FLSA. The court did not address other grounds raised by the defendants, such as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) precluding the claims, the inapplicability of the statutes to government employers, failure to exhaust contractual remedies, and the statute of limitations.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting as true the plaintiffs' allegation that providing security is among their principal activities. The appellate court found that the MOU precludes plaintiffs from seeking additional wages under general state wage laws, thus affirming the demurrer as to the first and second causes of action. However, the court held that plaintiffs stated a claim for breach of contract and that the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved on demurrer. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred.The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed while dismissing the other claims. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law