Skip to main content

Non-Competes Not Neccesarily Assignable When Company Sold


Symphony Diagnostic Services No. 1. Inc. d/b/a MobileEx USA v. Greenbaum - U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division


Facts:  Kimberly Greenbaum ("Greenbaum") began working as a mobile x-ray technician for Ozark Mobile.  Greenbaum subsequently executed a covenant not to compete with Ozark that contained a term of two years and a one hundred mile radius of a particular area.  Another employee, Josephine Tabanag ("Tabanag") began working for Ozark as a mobile x-ray technician and signed a similar covenant not to compete when she began employment. 

Several years later, Ozark was sold to MobileX USA.  Both Greenbaum and Tabanag were offered positions with MobileX.  However, at the time of sale, Greenbaum and Tabanag did not contemporaneously consent to the assignment of their covenants not to compete.  Shortly after the sale of Ozark, both Greenbaum and Tabanag accepted positions at Biotech X-ray.  

Mobile subsequently filed suit against both Greenbaum and Tabanag on the grounds that they breached their covenants not to compete.  Greenbaum and Tabanag both filed for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not consent to the assignment of their non-competes.

Holding:  The District Court agreed with Greenbaum and Tabanag and held that employment contracts, including non-compete and confidentiality agreements, are not assignable without consent.  As the facts demonstrated in this case, Mobile failed to get contemporaneous consent at the time of the asset sale with Ozark.  Given this lack of consent from Greenbaum and Tabanag, the Court held that the covenants not to compete did not transfer and were not assignable to Mobile, as the new employer.

Judgment:  The District Court granted Greenbaum and Tabanag's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that since they did not give their contemporaneous consent to the assignment of their covenants not to compete when their employer sold its assets to a new company, the covenants not to compete were not enforceable by the new employer. 

The Takeaway:  Employers (and especially those who are buying the assets of another company), do not automatically assume that everything transfers over.  In this instance, this case serves as an example that just because an asset sale occurs, that does not necessarily mean that covenants not to compete transfer to the new company as well.  Tread lightly and review everything first...not everything is a given and automatically transfers when one company buys the assets of another. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Gaitan, Jr.

Date:  March 16, 2015

Opinion:  www.noncompetereport.com/files/2015/03/Symphony-Diagnostic-Services-No.-1-Inc.-v.-Greenbaum.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

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