As employers reopen their companies following closures or reductions in operations required throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many are grappling with the fraught and sophisticated job of bringing laid-off or furloughed staff again to the office. Among the many many points that such employers might want to take care of in onboarding these staff is whether or not and to what extent they might want to renew their restrictive covenants agreements with staff who had such agreements earlier than the pandemic. A latest determination issued by america Court docket of Appeals for the First Circuit—Russomano v. Novo Nordisk Inc., No. 20-1173 (June 2, 2020)—gives an essential reminder to employers that, if they need their post-employment restrictions on staff to be enforceable, they might have to require that the workers signal new agreements.
Thomas Russomano started working for Novo Nordisk Inc. in January 2016 as a hemophilia neighborhood specialist. The corporate laid off Russomano in October 2016, after which rehired him in November 2016 as a “Hemophilia Remedy Supervisor” in its “Penn West” area, which encompassed New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In December 2016, as a situation of his new employment, Novo Nordisk required Russomano to signal a confidentiality and noncompetition settlement that barred him from competing with the corporate throughout his employment “and for a interval of twelve months following the termination of [his] employment for any cause, voluntary or involuntary.”
In June 2018, Novo Nordisk knowledgeable Russomano by letter that his place was being eradicated and that his employment with the corporate would finish on August 3, 2018. Within the letter, Novo Nordisk inspired Russomano to use for open positions throughout the firm; he did so, and obtained a suggestion to work in a special place—“Senior Hemophilia Neighborhood Liaison”—in New York Metropolis. In its letter to Russomano providing him the brand new place, Novo Nordisk referred to it as a “switch,” and set August 6, 2018—three days after the termination of his earlier place—as the beginning date for his new function. Novo Nordisk didn’t require Russomano to signal a brand new confidentiality and noncompetition settlement in reference to the brand new job.
Russomano started working within the new place on August 6, 2018, as scheduled. On January 6, 2020, he resigned from that place and, roughly two weeks later, started working for Novo Nordisk’s competitor, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., as a “Senior Account Supervisor – Hemophilia Gene Remedy.” As a result of Novo Nordisk refused to offer Russomano with written assurance that it might not search to implement the noncompetition provisions of his December 2016 settlement, Russomano filed a lawsuit towards the corporate on January 9, 2020, searching for a declaratory judgment that his employment with BioMarin wouldn’t violate the settlement. Novo Nordisk countersued Russomano, asserting claims beneath Massachusetts regulation for breach of contract, unfair competitors, and misappropriation of commerce secrets and techniques, and added third-party claims towards BioMarin for tortious interference with contract, unfair competitors, and misappropriation of commerce secrets and techniques. Novo Nordisk then filed a movement for preliminary injunction asking the district court docket to subject an injunction barring Russomano from working for BioMarin in violation of his noncompetition settlement.
The District Court docket’s Determination
The district court docket denied Novo Nordisk’s movement, holding that the corporate had terminated Russomano’s employment on August 3, 2018, and thus the 12-month noncompetition interval offered for within the December 2016 settlement had expired on August 3, 2019—months earlier than his new employment at BioMarin commenced. The court docket rejected Novo Nordisk’s argument that its termination of Russomano’s employment had been conditioned on his incapability to discover a new place with the corporate, ruling that the language in its June 2018 letter terminating his employment had been “unambiguous.”
The First Circuit’s Determination
Novo Nordisk appealed the district court docket’s denial of the preliminary injunction movement to the First Circuit. The court docket of appeals affirmed the district court docket’s ruling, holding that the 12-month noncompetition interval had been triggered on August 3, 2018, when Russomano’s employment ended beneath the plain and unambiguous phrases of Novo Nordisk’s June 2018 letter. The court docket rejected Novo Nordisk’s “efforts to seek out ambiguity” within the letter, observing that the one “conditional language” within the letter was in reference to his potential severance advantages, which it made conditional on (amongst different issues) “not settle for[ing] an alternate place with Novo Nordisk previous to the Separation Date.” The court docket additionally held that the corporate’s reference to Russomano’s new place as a “switch” in its 2018 supply letter was not ample “to undermine its clear reference to the ‘finish’ of his employment with the corporate within the termination letter and later his ‘new place.’”
Key Takeaways for Employers
Within the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have been compelled to put off or furlough staff. As these employers reopen and convey again laid-off or furloughed staff, the Russomano determination is a well timed reminder that if these staff had agreements containing post-employment restrictive covenants, the workers’ restrictions could have been triggered and new agreements could also be required. In a number of states, moreover, merely requiring staff to signal new variations of the agreements that that they had signed earlier than won’t be ample. In Massachusetts, for instance, new noncompetition agreements that don’t adjust to the procedural safeguards and different provisions of the Massachusetts Noncompete Regulation, which applies to all noncompetition agreements entered into after October 1, 2018, won’t be enforceable.
Accordingly, among the many many issues that employers in Massachusetts and elsewhere could wish to contemplate in reopening their companies and bringing staff again is whether or not they might want to require new restrictive covenants agreements with these staff—and likewise whether or not they might want to replace their agreements with a view to make sure that the restrictions are enforceable.
© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.