Flurry of Restrictive Covenant and Trade Secret Activity This Spring

There has been a number of developments affecting employment agreements, non-compete agreements and trade secrets this Spring.  First, a new federal statute was enacted last month, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 which, as discussed below, creates federal court jurisdiction over civil trade secret theft lawsuits, authorizes courts to issue ex parte seizure orders in “extraordinary circumstances” and authorizes treble damages and attorneys’ fees  only when the employer amended its confidentiality agreements and/or policies to permit confidential disclosure to government agencies, under seal in litigation, and to attorneys in whistleblower situations, but does not permit court to enjoin individuals from obtaining employment with a competitor.   In one lawsuit, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for an employer who revoked a former employee’s severance pay when he began working for a company and the severance agreement permitted the employer in its “sole discretion” to deem it a “competitor.”  In the second, the employer lost in its attempt to keep temporary employees from continuing to work for a client through a competitor supplier because the court interpreted the contract to only apply if the defendant employees had voluntarily resigned, which they had not.  Finally, in the last decision from earlier this month, the court reversed a shortening of the restrictive period from one year to six months because the hardship on the employee was not undue in light of his considerable financial resources.

 Congressed passed the DTSA in April and it was signed by the President in May.  Federal court may be invoked when a trade secret involving a product or service used in interstate or federal commerce has misappropriated within the prior three years.   In extraordinary circumstances, a court may – without prior notice to the defendant – issue an order for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the dissemination or propagation of the misappropriated trade secret.    The Court may also grant other civil remedies, but may not enjoin an employment relationship or enjoin information that the person simply knows (as opposed to misappropriated trade secrets).  In other words, Congress did not adopt the inevitable disclosure doctrine and only provides a remedy when the misappropriation was through “improper means” or was acquired by someone who knew that the information was “derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret.”  “Improper means” was defined to “include[] theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means” but “does not include reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition.”  The DTSA does not preempt state law or change the burden of providing that particular information is, in fact, a trade secret.

In order to obtain an ex parte seizure order, the plaintiff needs to show that a TRO (i.e., temporary restraining order) would be inadequate because the defendant ‘would evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such an order and the plaintiff would suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the property were not seized.  The plaintiff need also show that the harm to the defendant and third parties is outweighed by the plaintiff’s harm, that the defendant has possession of the trade secret and property to be seized, and that it is likely that information is in fact a trade secret which was misappropriated through improper means (or through such a conspiracy).  Finally, the plaintiff needs to show that the application for a seizure order has not been publicized and, if it were, that the defendant (and/or his/her co-conspirators) would move or destroy or make inaccessible the property to be seized.  The property seized is then placed in the custody of the court.  The defendant could have an action for wrongful seizure against the plaintiff.

In order to obtain treble damages or attorney’s fees following the successful prosecution of a trade secret theft action, the employer must have first provided notice of the DTSA’s statutory immunity to defendant through “any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information”  which is signed or modified after May 11, 2016 or through “a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.”   “Employees” includes contractors and consultants.  This statutory immunity protects individuals from being held criminally or civilly liable under any federal or state trade secret law if the individual’s otherwise unlawful disclosure was made in confidence to a federal, state or local government official or any attorney solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected legal violation, or was disclosed in a complaint or other document filed under seal in a lawsuit or, if the individual  files a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit for retaliation against his or her employer, was disclosed to the individual’s own attorney  or used in the court proceeding if the information is filed under seal and only disclosed pursuant to a court order.

As for non-competition agreement cases, the first case involves a non-competition provision inserted in a severance agreement.  Saunier v. Stark Truss Co., Inc., 2016-Ohio-3162.  The non-competition clause was not very strict.  The employee agreed to not work for any competitor for a year, but even if he did, he would only lose his severance pay.  In addition, the Agreement permitted him to work for a competitor in certain non-sensitive positions (i.e., maintenance), but again, if he did so, his severance pay would cease.  The determination of what entity was a “competitor” was left to the “sole discretion” of the employer without any reasonableness standard.   The employee obtained a job shortly thereafter and, wouldn’t you know it, the employer deemed that entity to be a competitor and cut off his severance pay.  The employee sued and lost because the Court found that the Agreement gave the employer the “sole discretion” to deem the entity a competitor.

In the second case, the employer lost in attempting to keep its temporary employees from continuing to work for its client through a competitor.  Drone Consultants, L.L.C. v. Armstrong, 2016-Ohio-3222.  The plaintiff employer provided temporary employees to a client.  Those employees were required by contract to provide two weeks advance notice of resignation so that their replacements could be recruited and trained and then precluded from returning to their temporary assignment with that client through a competitor.   After the client terminated its contract with the plaintiff employer, the employer notified the six defendant employees that their employment was being terminated and they could collect unemployment.  Instead, they were hired by a competitor who placed them right back in their previous assignments with that client and the plaintiff employer sued.  The Court interpreted the contract to only require the employees to provide notice if they voluntarily resigned, which they had not.  Similarly, the restriction against returning to their previous assignments through a competitor also only applied in the event of their voluntarily resignation and, therefore, did not apply in the event of their involuntary termination.    Although the court ultimately did not discuss or apply it, the plaintiff employer’s contract to provide contingent workers to that client provided that it was required to waive any restrictive covenants that would preclude those workers from continuing to work for the client in the event the plaintiff employer’s contract was terminated by the other party without cause (which it had been).

The final case from earlier this month reversed the trial court’s shortening of the non-compete period from one year to six months.   AK Steel Corp. v. Arcelormittal USA, L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-3285.  In that case, a senior executive with knowledge of the plaintiff employer’s strategic plans for the future was subject to a one-year world-wide non-competition agreement and was recruited to the be the COO of a larger competitor.   The trial court reduced the restrictive period to six months on the grounds that it constituted an undue hardship to the defendant employee without a corresponding benefit to the plaintiff employer.  The appeals court found the restrictive period to be reasonable in light of his confidential knowledge of strategy, business plans, manufacturing processes for current and next generation products, future plant locations, pricing and awarding of contracts, etc.

To be sure, there is no allegation that Howell has in any way attempted to steal confidential or trademarked information for the benefit of ArcelorMittal. Furthermore, it is acknowledged among the parties that certain information available to Howell, such as highly complex and detailed manufacturing processes and patented technology, are simply not capable of reproduction from memory. Rather, the pertinent concerns related to confidential information involving company strategy and information that is relied upon at such a fundamental level that makes non-disclosure nearly impossible. Although there is no evidence to suggest any malicious intent on the part of ArcelorMittal, as competing multibillion dollar companies operating worldwide, there is a certain amount of information, in particular strategic decisions, that the companies have a legitimate interest in remaining confidential. The record establishes that AK Steel has a legitimate interest in restricting Howell, the fourth-highest executive within the company, from accepting employment from a competitor for a one-year period.

Finally, the Court rejected the trial court’s concern with hardship on the defendant employee because every employee suffers some hardship from these covenants, but they can only be modified or eliminated when the hardship is undue:

 . . the trial court failed to consider that "sole means of support," as noted by the Raimonde decision is not limited to employment income. The record here supported a finding that Howell was a highly sought after senior executive of a major steel company, and was recruited by an even larger competitor. Although there was testimony that Howell had a family that depended on his income, there was also testimony that Howell had a large, vested retirement plan from AK Steel, and his new employment with ArcelorMittal would include a $900,000 signing bonus. In resolving the issue of "undue hardship," we find the trial court erred by failing to consider the additional resources in determining whether the noncompete provision deprived Howell of his sole means of support.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.