Skip to main content

Continued Employment is Not Sufficient Consideration to Enforce a Non-Compete Agreement Signed After Employment Has Started (Hawaii)


The Standard Register Co. v. Keala - US District Court for the District of Hawaii


Facts:  Lynden Keala, Jaxcine Kaulili-Guzon, and Sharon Brown-Henry all worked for The Standard Register Co. and WorkflowOne LLC ("WorkflowOne").  Each of the employes signed agreements with WorkflowOne in which they agreed to 1) not disclose the confidential trade secrets of WorkflowOne; and 2) for a period of twelve months after their last date of employment with WorkflowOne, not solicit business competitive to WorkflowOne.  While Keala signed the agreement around the time he started back with WorkflowOne, both Kaulili-Guzon and Brown-Henry signed the agreements after they had been working at WorkflowOne for a period of time.

After the former employees left their positions at WorkflowOne, suit was subsequently filed against the former employees as well as their current employer.  WorkflowOne based its claims on the grounds that the former employees violated the employment agreement with WorkflowOne when the former employees went to work for the new company and solicited clients and disclosed trade secrets from their former employer.

WorkflowOne filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and requested that the court enter an order that would prohibit Defendants from 1) breaching the non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions of the former employees' agreements with WorkflowOne; 2) misappropriating, disclosing, or otherwise using WorkflowOne's trade secrets; and 3) tortiously interfering with WorkflowOne's valid business relationships and contracts.

Holding:  The District Court denied the requested Temporary Restraining Order and held that as a result of a lack of valid consideration for the agreements the former employees signed, the agreements were not enforceable.  Had the consideration been a promotion or even a raise, that could have been deemed adequate consideration to enforce the non-compete agreements.   The Court relied upon a prior Hawaii Supreme Court case that dealt with a similar issue over what consideration is necessary to enforce a non-compete and held that since Brown-Henry and Kaulili-Guzon did not receive any consideration, beyond continued employment from WorkflowOne, the non-compete was not enforceable. 

Other jurisdictions, including Minnesota, Texas, Montana, and Washington were mentioned by the court as also holding that continued employment was not sufficient consideration to enforce a non-compete agreement entered into after employment had already started.  

Judgment:  The District Court denied WorkflowOne's requested Temporary Restraining Order and held the non-compete agreements were not enforceable as the consideration offered by WorkflowOne, mere continued employment, was not sufficient consideration to enforce the non-compete agreements.

The Takeaway:  Readers of the blog are aware that non-compete agreements are a favorite topic of mine.  This case is a good example of how different jurisdictions view non-competes, particularly in the area of what consideration is needed to enforce the non-competes.  In this instance, Hawaii is one of the jurisdictions that holds continued employment is not sufficient consideration to enforce a non-compete.  Employers and employees should check the law in their jurisdiction before seeking to sign, let alone enforce, a non-compete agreement.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Seabright

Date:  July 11, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.employmentmattersblog.com/files/2014/07/The-Standard-Register-Co.-v-Keala.pdf


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

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more