In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, Huron Technology v. Sparling, Mich. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2014, Unpublished, the Court found that an Employee did not violate his Non-Compete Agreement because he was not working for a “competitor” as defined under his Agreement.
The Defendant/Employee executed an employment contract when he was first hired by Plaintiff, a company in the material handling industry. In the Agreement, he agreed he would not for a period of two years after his employment ends, perform any services . . . for a company which makes or sells . . . any products or service competitive with a product or service offered by his employer. Defendant’s job involved soliciting customers and developing specialized equipment for each customer’s unique needs.
When Defendant resigned from his Employer, he became employed with LEWCO, Inc., a Corporation in the same material handling industry. Employer sought to enjoin the Defendant from working for LEWCO, while Defendant argued that LEWCO was not a competitor of plaintiff because LEWCO did not accept elevated-risk projects, whereas his former employer almost exclusively accepted elevated-risk projects. The trial court concluded that the non-compete agreement, though reasonable in duration and geographic scope, was unenforceable because it did not protect the employer’s reasonable competitive business interests and was an unreasonably broad prohibition on field of employment. The trial court alternatively found the defendant did not breach the non-compete agreement because there was little competition between LEWCO and plaintiff. The trial court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff/Employer appealed.
The Court of Appeals stated that “[a]t first glance, it appears to be a close question whether the trial court erred in concluding that the language referencing ‘any products or service competitive with a product or service offered by the Company’ was an unreasonably overbroad prohibition on line of business.”
The Court noted that a careful reading of the plaintiff’s noncompete showed that it encompassed “a significantly broader” range of businesses than noncompete language in prior case law.
“But in this case, the non-compete agreement [prohibited] defendant from working for a business that offers a single product or service that is “competitive” with any product or service offered by the plaintiff, regardless of whether the business is in actual competition with the plaintiff,” the Court stated. “The non-compete agreement [prohibited] the defendant from working for any business that is in remote competition with the plaintiff, which is unreasonably restrictive,” the Court of Appeals said.
Because the provision in the noncompete was unreasonable, the trial court erred by not imposing a reasonable prohibition instead of completely voiding the agreement. However, any error was harmless because the reasonable prohibition would have limited the defendant from working with a competitor in the plaintiff’s field of business.
The trial court ruled the plaintiff and LEWCO are not competitors. The [trial] court noted that plaintiff ‘is involved in highly modified conveyors that create dangerous conditions for operators,’ while LEWCO ‘manufactures more standardized conveyors and refuses to get involved in high risk projects.’” Therefore, even if a reasonable prohibition was inserted into the contract, the plaintiff still could not succeed on its claim.
This case illustrates the intricacies involved in interpretation of a non-compete agreement and stresses the importance of a properly drafted agreement. If your Company requires drafting or review of non-compete agreements, please contact the attorneys at Dalton & Tomich, PLC for further assistance.
The business and employment attorneys of Dalton & Tomich take your business just as seriously as you do. Attorneys Zana Tomich and Noel Sterett are trusted by closely held family businesses and others across Michigan and Northern Illinois as invaluable partners and counselors. We guarantee all your calls and emails will be returned within one business day so you can focus on what you do best: running your business.
Having worked with Zana for 10 years, I can attest to her professionalism, her pragmatism, and most importantly, her integrity. I always get sound, thoughtful advice and guidance. From routine filings & updates to the highly unexpected, Zana’s there to help, always responding quickly and […]Read More
We highly recommend Dalton & Tomich! As a start-up firm that has rapidly grown across the country in under 5 years, Dalton & Tomich has been integral to our sound, credible, and excellent in standard infrastructure. As we’ve scaled, Zana has been right by our […]Read More
As a professional photographer in the wedding industry, reliable communication is very important to me. Noel was very knowledgeable and quick to respond to all of my questions and not just that, he also gave me suggestions when reviewing and updating my contract. The entire […]Read More
Zana’s expert guidance has helped us to move forward with clarity and confidence in our business endeavors. She helped us create a new business entity, and a few years later to navigate a tricky buyout—all with a clear path forward for business growth. Her calm […]Read More
Noel’s guidance was much appreciated when redrafting my client contract. He was very professional, respectful of my time and potential costs, and was sincere with his advice. I trusted that he had the highest good for my business in mind. I will seek out his […]Read More
Zana’s expertise in employee law has helped us refine and build a stronger operations and hiring strategy at my company. As a business owner of a small and fast growing company, I very much appreciate Zana’s ability to always step into any situation quickly and […]Read More