ILNews

Summary judgment improper in non-compete clause appeal

Dave Stafford
September 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a former employer that sought to exercise a non-compete clause in the contract of an airline mechanic who went to work for another company.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the company and reinstated the worker’s claim of tortious interference with a contract in Joseph M. Guinn v. Applied Composites Engineering, Inc., 49A02-1303-CC-239.

Applied Composites Engineering demanded that Guinn be terminated after he was hired to work by AAR Aircraft Services. His contract with ACE had contained a “non-competition covenant” that said he could not work for any company “in the same of substantially similar business” as ACE for six months. AAR ultimately fired Guinn after ACE forwarded the non-compete language to AAR and threatened litigation.

“We conclude that the designated evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether or not ACE’s conduct in connection with Guinn’s employment relationship with AAR was justified or fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel. “Accordingly, we cannot conclude that ACE is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Guinn’s claim for tortious interference.”

The panel that also included judges Paul Mathias and Edward Najam noted that “ACE and Guinn were not on equal footing in terms of sophistication or the ability to protect their interests,” and that Guinn wasn’t asked to sign the contract until about 10 months after he started working for the company. Guinn testified he was told the agreement was a formality and “didn’t necessarily apply” to mechanics but had to be on file.

Judges used the 33-page opinion to cite more than six decades of caselaw taking an unfavorable view of non-compete clauses. Brown reached back to Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp., 234 Ind. 398, 411, 127 N.E.2d 235, 241 (1955), “noting that an employer ‘has no right to unnecessarily interfere with the employee’s following any trade or calling for which he is fitted and from which he may earn his livelihood and he cannot preclude him from exercising the skill and general knowledge he has acquired or increased through experience or even instructions while in the employment.’”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT