Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Morris and McDaniel filed suit against Ernst & Young, alleging that the company misclassified Morris and similarly situated employees and denied overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and California laws. Ernst & Young subsequently moved to compel arbitration under the agreements signed by Morris and McDaniel. The district court ordered arbitration and dismissed the case. Morris and McDaniel argue that their employment agreements, where they signed a "concerted action waiver" with the company, violate federal labor laws and cannot be enforced. Plaintiffs claim that the “separate proceedings” clause in the agreement contravenes three federal statutes: the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et. seq., the Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and the FLSA. The court agreed with the Board's interpretation of section 7 and section 8 of the NLRA that an employer violates the NLRA when it requires employees covered by the Act, as a condition of their employment, to sign an agreement that precludes them from filing joint, class, or collective claims addressing their wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial. In this case, the terms of the concerted action waiver are unenforceable. The “separate proceedings” clause prevents concerted activity by employees in arbitration proceedings, and the requirement that employees only use arbitration prevents the initiation of concerted legal action anywhere else. The court also concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., does not dictate a contrary result. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to determine whether the “separate proceedings” clause was severable from the contract. View "Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP" on Justia Law

When David Goldan began working as an independent contractor insurance agent for Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers and Goldan entered into an Agency Appointment Agreement defining the parties’ rights and obligations. After Farmers terminated Goldan, Farmers sued Goldan alleging that Goldan breached his contractual duties and fiduciary responsibilities under the Agreement by soliciting and servicing the insurance business of policyholders within a year of his termination. Goldan counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that Farmers terminated him without cause. The jury ruled in favor of Goldan on all issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) by denying Farmers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the question of damages; (2) in denying Farmers’ motion for sanctions based on Goldan’s alleged discovery violations; and (3) in concluding that damages should not be limited to a three-month notice period allowed in the contract for terminations without cause. View "Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Goldan" on Justia Law

After hiring Plaintiff, Defendant-employer amended its sales commission plan. At dispute in this case was a revised commission provision, which provided that Plaintiff’s commissions would not be paid unless Defendant had invoiced commissionable amount to the client prior to Plaintiff’s termination. After Plaintiff was terminated, he filed a wage statute claim alleging that the commission provision was contrary to public policy and a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-72. Plaintiff’s remaining two claims were stricken upon Defendant’s motion. After a trial, the court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff, holding that the commission provision at issue was contrary to public policy. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) improperly determined that the commission provision violated public policy and constituted a violation of section 31-72; (2) erred in striking Plaintiff’s claim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) did not err in striking Plaintiff’s claim alleging wrongful discharge. Remanded. View "Geysen v. Securitas Security Servs. USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Amy Tuschen worked for RLM for six years and then joined a competitor, eScience. RLM filed suit against eScience and Tuschen, alleging principally that Tuschen breached a covenant not to compete and unlawfully took confidential information from RLM and shared it with eScience. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the covenant not to compete was not enforceable because it was overbroad, and RLM failed to present sufficient evidence that Tuschen took or shared RLM’s confidential information. The court rejected RLM's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "RLM Communications v. Tuschen" on Justia Law

Multi-employer funds established by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractor National Association and the Sheet Metal Worker’s Union sought confirmation of arbitration awards granted against five employers. None of the employers had participated in the arbitration, which concerned contributions to the funds. The district court declined to confirm the award, concluding that there was an open question as to whether the employers were party to the CBA, and, therefore, bound to its arbitration procedures. After initially ruling that state law applied to the question of whether the employers were bound to arbitrate under the CBA, the court certified a question for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b): whether state or federal law will apply at trial to the question of whether the employers “are bound/signatory to” the CBA? The Sixth Circuit reversed. While state contract law may provide helpful guideposts to federal courts, it is well-established that in the field of labor relations, the technical rules of contract law do not determine the existence of a CBA. The law to be applied to the question of whether a party has assented to the terms of a CBA, including an arbitration provision, is ultimately federal. View "Sheet Metal Employers Indus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Nucor after sustaining injuries while working at Nucor's steel mill. The district court granted summary judgment to Nucor, finding that the third-party waiver's (TPW) language and the circumstances of its execution met the standard for enforcement of exculpatory contracts under Arkansas law and that the agreement was not unconscionable. The court agreed with the district court that the TPW was enforceable where the parties stipulated that plaintiff had the opportunity to read the TPW, that he did not ask the trainer any questions concerning the meaning of the TPW, and that he had the ability to read and understand the contract. The court also concluded that the contract provision at issue is not unconscionable where there is no evidence rebutting Nucor's affidavit showing the availability of other work in the region at that time, plaintiff had the opportunity to read and understand the TPW, and there is no evidence of fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or any other inequitable conduct on the part of Vesuvius or Nucor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stewart, Jr. v. Nucor Corp." on Justia Law

After Ozark was sold to Mobilex, Mobilex filed suit against defendant to enforce the non-compete and confidentiality agreements defendants had signed with Ozark. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the basis that a personal services contract cannot be assigned to a subsequent employer under Missouri law without the employee’s contemporaneous consent. The court adopted the majority rule and held that covenants not to compete can be assigned to a successor employer without contemporaneous consent. In this case, the non-compete agreements precluded only working in the field of medical diagnostics or soliciting business from certain clients within a specified geographical area. A reasonable jury, looking at the facts in the record, could find that defendants did not agree to the non-compete and confidentiality agreements because of Ozark’s unique characteristics. Because the court found that the non-compete and confidentiality agreements at issue here were not personal services contracts and could be assigned without the consent of defendants, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Symphony Diagnostic Serv. v. Greenbaum" on Justia Law

Popescu sued Apple for damages after he was fired by his employer, Constellium. He alleged that Apple took affirmative steps to convince Constellium to terminate him in retaliation for his resistance to Apple’s alleged illegal anti-competitive conduct. The court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed with respect to claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. An employee whose at-will employment contract is terminated as a result of a third party’s interference need not allege that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful to state a contract interference claim. Popescu was not required to allege that he was directly harmed by an independently wrongful act so long as he alleged (as he did) that Apple’s wrongful act interfered with his economic relationship with Constellium. View "Popescu v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners Interstate Freight USA, Inc., Interstate Specialized, Inc., Interstate Freight, Inc. (collectively referred to as "the Interstate companies"), Charles Browning, and Donald Raughton, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Baldwin Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to transfer the underlying action to the St. Clair Circuit Court and to enter an order granting the motion. The plaintiff in the underlying action, Kevin Vogler, was hired as a vice president/general manager for Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. Vogler sued, alleging that: in December 2013, he was working for another company and had become interested in acquiring the transportation branch of the Interstate companies; that he had entered into negotiations with Browning, the president of Interstate Freight USA and Interstate Specialized, and Raughton, a business consultant for the Interstate companies; that Browning and Raughton were acting on behalf of the Interstate companies; that the parties had agreed that "Vogler could acquire a minority interest in the trucking business over a two year period and, after two years of employment with the Interstate companies, would have the option of buying out the interest of Defendant Browning"; that Browning and Raughton had made representations to him regarding his salary and benefits; and that, based on those representations, Vogler left his previous employment and entered into separate employment contracts with Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. In early 2014, however, the businesses were shut down for "financial reasons," and Vogler's position was terminated. Petitioners moved to dismiss Vogler's complaint, or in the alternative, for a change of venue. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Baldwin County was the proper venue, but that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue on the "interest-of-justice" prong of the forum non conveniens statute. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to transfer this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court. View "Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. (KSF) and Brantley Dunaway entered into an employment agreement. Two years later, KSF terminated Dunaway’s employment. When KSF informed Dunaway that he was not entitled to a bonus for the 2013 fiscal year, Dunaway filed an action for breach of contract. Nearly one year later, KSF filed a motion for partial summary judgment and declaratory relief, arguing that KSF’s determination that Dunaway was not entitled to a bonus was a binding “arbitration award” issued by an independent accounting firm. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that the employment agreement did not contain an agreement to forgo litigation and arbitrate any bonus dispute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between KSF and Dunaway, and because no arbitration proceeding occurred, there was no arbitration award to be confirmed. View "Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway" on Justia Law