Study Document
Legal Brief: Anthony Labriola V. Pollard Group Research Paper
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 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…
Sample Source(s) Used
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.