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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more