Skip to main content

Non-Compete Covenants in Texas - Recent Development


Note:  I am familiar with two of the three court of appeals judges that decided this case, Judges Keyes and Higley.  Judge Keyes' husband, an attorney in Houston and Austin, taught one of my classes in law school.  Judge Higley was a fellow member of the Garland Walker Inn of Court and was a judge of an appellate argument I gave.


Sentinel Integrity Solutions, Inc. v. Mistras Group, Inc. - First District Court of Appeals, Texas 

Facts:  Jody Olson, an employee of Sentinel, agreed to and executed a non-compete covenant that prevented him from performing for a competitor any duties encompassed by the role of a manager for Sentinel.  The non-compete included a geographic restriction on Olson working in locations in any one of seven different states, plus Trinidad and Tobago, and a time restriction for a period of three years.  After starting with Sentinel in August of 2009, Olson worked for the company a few months before deciding to leave in December of 2009.  After leaving Sentinel, Olson went to work for Mistras Group, Inc, doing similar work for his new company as he had done for Sentinel.

Sentinel sued and alleged that the non-compete covenant prevented Olson from working for Mistras. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Sentinel's attorney acknowledged that the geographic scope of the non-compete was overbroad.  However, Sentinel maintained that the rest of the non-compete was enforceable and should merely be reformed to limit the scope of the geographic restriction.  Olson's attorney testified as to his attorney's fees and asked for an award of approximately $750,000, which the jury awarded.  The trial court reformed the non-compete to allow for a less harsh geographic restriction and also entered a final judgment awarding Olson's attorney the $750,000 in attorney's fees.  Sentinel appealed, and the relevant focus of this analyses centers on Sentinel's claim that the award of attorney's fees was improper.

Holding:  The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the $750,000 award in attorney's fees to Olson's attorney.  The Court noted that Section 15.51(c) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code provides that an employee can recover attorney's fees in a dispute over non-compete covenants, and it is within the trial court's discretion on whether or not to award attorney's fees.  To recover attorney's fees under this section, a party must show that (1) at the time the non-compete was entered into, the employer knew a geographic restriction in the non-compete was broader than reasonably necessary and (2) the employer sought to enforce the covenant to a greater extent than necessary. 

In this instance, the Court held that Olson's attorney had properly proven up his attorney's fees under Section 15.51(c).  The Court noted that the jury found that Sentinel knew, that at the time the agreement was signed, it did not contain reasonable limitations and was broader than necessary.  The evidence and testimony introduced at trial supported this finding.  As well, the Court recognized that Olson's attorney had properly proven up his attorney's fees by way of nearly 170 pages of redacted invoices introduced into evidence at the trial court level as well as testimony as to the reasonable and necessary amount of attorney's fees that were requested.   

The Takeaway:  Employers need to be aware of the potential exposure they face for merely reforming a non compete covenant that is found to contain overly restrictive provisions.  Going forward, employers need to consider the time span, geographic location, and scope of duties protected under a non-compete covenant and ensure that each is reasonable at the time the agreement is executed.  Failure to do so could subject employers to having to foot the bill for the employee's attorney's fees in a case such as this.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Olson's attorney. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Keyes

Date:  October 22, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=788d9df3-2080-43ef-a8e2-3ae75369a047&MediaID=90ed0746-b5c1-40a1-8f22-bcb77cabbc69&coa=%22%20+%20this.CurrentWebState.CurrentCourt%20+%20@%22&DT=Opinion

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more