Skip to main content

A Choice of Law Provision in a Non Compete Agreement Does Not Always Control


Cabela’s LLC v. Highby, et al - Third Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  (Note, in this short five page opinion, the Court of Appeals did not provide a lot in the way of facts.)

In short, Cabela’s LLC (“Cabela’s”) is a registered Delaware entity.  Cabela’s sought a temporary injunction to enjoin Matthew Highby, Molly Highby, and Highby Outdoors, LLC (“the Highbys”) from alleged violations of a non compete and non solicitation agreement.   (There was a non compete and non solicitation agreement in place which included a Delaware choice of law provision.  However, the Highbys were located in Nebraska and sought to have Nebraska law apply.  Nebraska non compete laws are stricter than Delaware’s.)  The district court denied the request from Cabela’s and Cabela’s appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  Under Nebraska law, a non compete may restrain competition by improper and unfair methods, but may not contain ordinary competition.  Delaware law differs, however, by allowing a non compete to prohibit ordinary competition so long as it is not oppressive to an employee.  Cabela’s argued that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws stipulated that a choice of law provision should control in any conflict of laws dispute.  However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out that the Restatement only requires a court to presume the contracting parties and/or relevant transactions have a significant material relationship with Delaware.  The Restatement does not require a court to presume that no other forum has a significant and more material interest in its law being applied.

The Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly identified a conflict of laws between Delaware’s policy in upholding the freedom of contract and Nebraska’s fundamental policy of not enforcing contracts that prohibit ordinary competition.  In this case, the non competes were executed in Nebraska between Nebraska citizens, the alleged breaches of the agreements occurred in Nebraska, and Cabela’s claims were partially based upon Nebraska law.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals recognized that Nebraska had a materially greater interest in applying its laws to the dispute.

The non competes themselves were therefore found to constrain ordinary competition because they prohibited the Highbys from using the general skills and training that they acquired while employed at Cabela’s in any other retail space that sold hunting, fishing, and other outdoor products with a reach outside Nebraska.

Judgment:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction sought by Cabela’s on the grounds that a Delaware choice of law provision in a non compete agreement did not apply as it was contrary to a fundamental policy of Nebraska.

The Takeaway:  This case serves as a good reminder that just because a choice of law provision is included in a contract/agreement/non compete/etc., that does not definitively mean that state’s law will apply.  As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals spelled out here, while the non compete would be valid under Delaware law, when looking at the facts, Nebraska law should control.  This case should provide employers and employees alike with a reminder that the enforceability of a contract or provision, while lawful in some states or jurisdictions, will not necessarily produce the same result elsewhere.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge McKee

Date:  April 14, 2020

Opinion:  http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191423np.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