Continuing my review of new employment-related bills is a measure that limits the use of non-compete agreements for doctors.
Anyone who tracks bills knows that the name on the bill sometimes doesn’t match the content. Senate Bill 351 entitled “AN ACT CONCERNING MATTERS AFFECTING PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS” is a good case in point.
Seems innocuous
One of the little facts that’s not widely known is that the SEC typically publishes all sorts of executive employment agreements for publicly-traded companies. They’re ready and available for download.
Why might the average person do that? Well, for one, these agreements can sometimes contain
While I normally make my year-end reflections at, well, year end, I can’t help but take this moment to see the big picture: We’re hearing an awful lot about restrictive covenants.
These covenants — often in the shape of non-compete clauses or non-solicitation (of employees or customers) clauses — have become popular because companies are
My colleague Chris Engler reports today on a new Connecticut Appellate Court case that focuses on a often misunderstood concept in employment contracts — the need for “consideration”. What was it that Dire Straits’ sang about in the 1980s? Getting “Money for Nothing”?
We’ve all been told that you can’t get something for nothing. That lesson was reiterated in a new case by the Appellate Court due to be officially released next week.
The Facts
As told by the Court, the facts of the case, Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., revolve around the employer’s attempts to attract investors.
One investment company told the employer, Oxford, that it wanted assurances that key personnel would not leave. Oxford dutifully entered into employment contracts with various employees, including Lynne Thoma.
The details of the contracts are important. This first employment contract gave Ms. Thoma a higher salary, job security (termination could only be with 60 days’ notice), and a severance package. In return, Ms. Thoma promised not to leave during the contract period and not to work for a competitor for six months after leaving. Ms. Thoma signed this contract.
At this point, both parties had gotten a benefit, and all seemed well.
But then a second investment company informed Oxford of its dissatisfaction because the employment contract was “too strong.” So Oxford went back to the drawing board and crafted new contracts.
Ms. Thoma’s second contract was quite different. It removed all of the monetary elements, including the salary increase. The new contract also allowed Oxford to fire Ms. Thoma without notice or cause. Finally, it prohibited Ms. Thoma from working for a competitor. (The length of this prohibition was unclear. If you’re a contract jargon junkie, I recommend reading the court’s analysis in full.)
Nevertheless, Ms. Thoma went ahead and signed this contract as well.
A year later, Oxford fired Ms. Thoma. She demanded the benefits from the first contract. Thus commenceth this case.
Is the Second Contract Enforceable?
Ultimately, both the trial court and the appellate court sided with Ms. Thoma, concluding that she didn’t receive any consideration in exchange for the sacrifices she made in the second contract. In other words, she gave up some perks without getting anything in return.
Continue Reading “Consider” This Important: Employment Contracts Are a Two-Way Street
Back in June, I talked about the standard that courts will follow in deciding whether or not to enforce a non-compete agreement between an employer and an employee. (Go read it here first.)
But many employers want to know something more straightforward: How long can I make the restrictive covenant in my agreement; in
In the July/August issue of the Connecticut Lawyer magazine, attorney Joseph Blyskal has the first of a two-part article on the state of restrictive covenants in employment agreements in Connecticut. I’ve talked about this several times before (most recently earlier this summer), but the Connecticut Lawyer article is recommended reading as well (it’s behind a
One of the bills that passed the Connecticut General Assembly last year was a bill that would have limited the scope and use of noncompete agreements.
But as I noted in a post last summer, Governor Malloy vetoed that piece of legislation.
In his veto message, however, he signaled a willingness to agree to
Last month, the General Assembly passed a bill in the closing hours of the legislative session that would have voided certain non-compete agreements in the event that a business was merged or acquired. It was a watered-down version of a bill that had been weaving its way through the legislature that would have placed
It’s the summer and let’s face it, our minds turn to mush.
That’s why reality television thrives in the summer. Just the ones on food and dining alone could make up an evening: Chopped. Restaurant Impossible. The Next Food Network Star.
(Confession time: I
The dust is still settling from the mad dash that is the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session.
I’ll have more in the upcoming days as events warrant, but here’s a quick look at a few items that I’ve been tracking in recent weeks.