Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Legal Brief: Anthony Labriola v. Pollard Group
Anthony Alan Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., WA Supreme Court, 2004, No. 74002-0
Whether a 2002 noncompete agreement negotiated after the employee had been hired and without independent consideration is enforceable.
SUBSTANTIVE FACTS:
Five years after beginning employment as a sales person the employer required the employee sign a noncompete agreement in 2002. In exchange the employee was allowed to remain employed.
After the noncompete agreement was signed by the employee, the employer changed the commission schedule such that the employee believed his income would be cut by 25%. As a result the employee began to search for employment elsewhere.
Upon learning of the employee's job search activities the employer fired the employee and notified competitors...
etitors of its intention to enforce the noncompete agreement.
As a result the employee remains unemployed.
PROCEDURAL FACTS:
Employee filed suit seeking a summary judgment that the noncompete agreement entered into after employment had already begun was null and void because it lacks consideration.
Employee also sought judgment that the employer maliciously interfered with the employee's attempts to find employment.
The trial court sided with the employer regarding the summary judgment motion and the employee dismissed the claim of tortuous interference with the job search.
Employee sought judicial review of the lower courts summary judgment decision.
HOLDING: The Washington Supreme Court held that the noncompete agreement entered into after employment was begun is null and…
Washington State recognizes as enforceable noncompete agreements entered into at the time of employment, but a noncompete agreement entered into after employment has begun requires additional independent consideration. In other words, unless both parties are burdened with additional obligations the contract is unenforceable. The employer's argument that continued employment and additional training constituted consideration was found to be unsupportable because the 2002 noncompete agreement made no promises regarding future employment, wages, or training.
JUDGEMENT: Reversed trial court's summary judgment ruling and enter a summary judgment ruling in favor of the employee.
Note: The Court also considered the issues of attorney fees and court costs, the employer's affirmative defenses and counter claims, and CR 11 sanctions. Employee was awarded attorney fees and costs, the Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the employer's affirmative defenses and counter claims for lack of a dispute and prima facie evidence, and held the employee's request for CR 11 sanctions as premature.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: 1) Did the SBL agreement constitute the contract between the parties? 2) Was Plaintiffs' case barred by the parole evidence rule? 3) Should the trial court have sustained Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiffs' case? Holding / Rule of Law: 1) The SBL agreement did not constitute the contract between the parties. The contracts were formed when Plaintiffs accepted Defendants offer and tendered their consideration. Therefore, the SBL agreement and addendum
Legal Brief: Hotjox Magazine Facts: Mark Studley (Studley), an Olympic swimmer, was featured on the cover of Hotjox magazine, a magazine targeted primarily at gay males. The picture was in the public domain. The magazine cover had the headline "Olympic Hunks Exposed" and said, "12 Sizzling Centerfolds Ready to Score with You," "Holy Speedo! Hot Athletic Buns!" And "Mark Studley, Olympic 2000's Best Body." The only image of Studley inside the
Legal Briefs Title and Citation: Suggs v. Norris. No. 364 S.E. 2nd 159. Court of Appeals North Carolina. 2 February 1988 Type of Action: Civil and Contractual Facts of the Case: Darlene Suggs cohabited with Norris, but remained unmarried. During their time together she worked with him as a partner in his produce business and, according to witnesses, was quite instrumental in the success of said business. Suggs also took care of Norris
Legal Brief The author preparing this brief is asked to defend against the banning of a book on the grounds that it is obscene and thus it should be barred from sale and distribution in the public sphere. The laws and standards surrounding obscenity are vague, subjective and impossible to reliably and consistently enforce in a manner that is even-handed and objective. As such, the banning of a book, movie or
When neither elected to do so, however, there was a violation of the New York Penal Code, leading to the consideration of their guilt or innocence. Implications Under Article 20 of New York Penal Law While the condemnation of a victim is not a viable defense, the implications for Bluto and his obligations under Article 20 deserves exploration. Just as Duty of Retreat applied to Popeye and Olive, it likewise applied
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Stedman Facts At issue is the fact that a person named Stedman drew a number of forged checks. The money belonged to the American Lung Association. However, Stedman appropriated the money for herself to the tune of about $130,000. The American Lung Association had an insurance policy to cover losses of this nature, at least to a degree. To that end, Traveler’s covered the losses of the American