Skip to main content

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"


Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio


Facts:  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles.

Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles" referred to a straight line distance rather than a driving distance.  Ginn subsequently appealed the ruling.

Holding:  The Court of Appeals began its analysis of the non-compete language with a reference to Martin's previous argument that parol evidence should have been considered when interpreting the non-compete provision.  (For those unfamiliar with parol evidence, the parol evidence rule prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting the terms of a contract.  Parol evidence may be considered, however, when a contract has not been fully integrated.  As a result, without evidence of fraud or mistake, the parties' final written terms of their agreement may not be varied, contradicted, or supplemented with additional evidence.)  Martin argued that since he and Ginn had interpreted "within 30 miles" differently, there was no "meeting of the minds" necessary to create an integrated contract.  However, the Court pointed to language in the agreement which stated it was "a final expression" of the agreement and could be modified or rescinded "only by a writing signed by both parties...".

In addition, the Court noted that prior Ohio cases that dealt with the term "within" (in regard to distance) had held that the term referred to a straight line distance rather than a driving distance.  Consequently, the Court held that the phrase "within 30 miles" was plain on its face and unambiguous.    

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's holding and found that the phrase "within 30 miles" in the non-compete agreement referred a straight line distance rather than a driving distance.  Consequently, Martin was found to have breached the non-compete agreement by working for a competing dental office that was within 30 miles (using a straight line/"as the crow flies" method) of his original office that he sold to Ginn.

The Takeaway:  I highlight this case as a reminder to employers that draft their own non-compete agreements (and because non-compete agreements are one of my favorite labor & employment law topics).  Each state may view distance restrictions differently; with this case serving as a prime example.  It is important to check whether your particular state measures distance by road, uses a straight line/"as the crow flies" method, or some other measurement to calculate distance restrictions.  Failure to properly keep up to date on what each state requires could result in an inadvertent breach of a non-compete agreement.  Whether intentional or not, that breach could result in hefty legal fees... 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Powell

Date:  October 26, 2015

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiflqPWxLbKAhWJ2yYKHfaHBYQQFggnMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.ohio.gov%2Frod%2Fdocs%2Fpdf%2F12%2F2015%2F2015-Ohio-4452.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFm_tQrMOOd1Gg-dOtm9DKNDaZNNg&sig2=m2KKoK5COJaEzkgnWh0xtw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.eWE&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