Skip to main content

Continued Employment is Lawful Consideration For a Restrictive Covenant (Wisconsin)


Runzheimer International, Ltd. v. David Friedlen and Corporate Reimbursement Services, Inc. - Wisconsin Supreme Court


Facts:  David Friedlen ("Friedlen") had been an employee of Runzheimer International ("Runzheimer") since 1993 as an at will employee.  However, in 2009, Runzheimer required all employees to sign a restrictive covenant that would prevent the employees form working for competitors for two years after employment with Runzheimer ended.  Friedlen signed the agreement but was subsequently fired two years later.  

After consulting with an attorney and being advised the the covenant was unenforceable, Friedlen went to work for a competitor of Runzheimer.  Runzheimer subsequently filed suit against Friedlen and his new employer.  The Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge who initially heard the matter ruled that the covenant's promise of continued employment was not lawful consideration and therefore ruled that the covenant was unenforceable. 

Holding:  Initially, the Court noted that jurisdictions across the country are split on whether forbearance of the right to terminate an at will employee amounts to lawful consideration.  In a nod to which way it would lean, the Court established that jurisdictions that hold a promise not to fire is not lawful consideration represent a "distinct minority."  On the other hand, with jurisdictions that hold a promise not to fire is lawful consideration, the Court pointed out that those employees are obtaining the expectation of continued employment, which is not illusory. 

When looking at Wisconsin caselaw, it is important to note that it has been established that "forbearance in exercising a legal right is valid consideration...".   As well, a contract will be held to be illusory when it is "conditional on some fact or event that is wholly under the promisor's control and his bringing it about is left wholly to his own will and discretion...".  

In this case, the Court noted that Runzheimer promised not to exercise its right to end the employment relationship with Friedlen at that time in exchange for Friedlen signing the restrictive covenant.  As a result, Runzheimer's forbearance of the right to terminate the at will employment of Friedlen constituted valid consideration and was not illusory as a result of Runzheimer's forebearance of its right at that time...rather than in the future.

Judgment:  The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and held that an employer's forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at will employee amounts to lawful consideration when dealing with a restrictive covenant.

The Takeaway:  This was a very interesting case to read, as I have some experience in restrictive covenants/non-competes.  I think the Court's reasoning makes sense here when you walk through it.  First, Runzheimer was giving up its right to terminate Friedlen in exchange for Friedlen signing the covenant.  On the other hand, in exchange for Runzheimer waiving this right, Friedlen agreed to a covenant restriction of two years.  As a result, there was a bargained for exchange, valid consideration, and consequently a valid restrictive covenant. 

Readers might also remember a case from Hawaii last year in which a court held that continued employment was not lawful consideration for a non-compete.   (Continued Employment Not Lawful Consideration...in Hawaii).  Interesting to see how different states/circuits view the issue.

Date:  April 30, 2015

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wicourts.gov%2Fsc%2Fopinion%2FDisplayDocument.pdf%3Fcontent%3Dpdf%26seqNo%3D141078&ei=uJZoVdvRFYiUyQTy3oK4CQ&usg=AFQjCNG1OBNhiJYSpG0o_kWmn1e52EduEw&sig2=Yz9XhwRu79_Zy7DJuejCrw&bvm=bv.94455598,d.b2w&cad=rja

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