Earlier this month, in Tradesman International, Inc. v. Black, et al., 2013 WL 3949020 (7th Cir. 2013), the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff construction staffing firm that sued four former employees for violating restrictive covenants they signed while employed by plaintiff.
The Plaintiff sought to enforce 18-month long and (effectively) nation-wide restrictive covenants (“non-competes”) that prevented defendants from (a) ever disclosing plaintiff’s proprietary information and (b) from soliciting construction staffing business within 100 miles of a Tradesman field office and within 25 miles of any Tradesman customer location. 2013 WL 3949020 at *2.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims because plaintiff failed to prove compensable damages and therefore could not show irreparable harm: a required permanent injunction element.
Disposition: The Seventh Circuit affirms District Court on summary judgment ruling; reverses on denial of defendants’ attorneys’ fees under Illinois Trade Secrets Act claim.
Grounds: (1) Plaintiff employer failed to show irreparable harm; and (2) Plaintiff’s restrictive covenants (the “non-competes”) were unreasonable – both in terms of content and geographic scope.
Reasoning: Plaintiff showed no harm, much less irreparable harm. Irreparable harm means damages that are ongoing and difficult to quantify. The Court held that since plaintiff failed to seek preliminary injunctive relief (as opposed to permanent injunctive relief), this undermined its irreparable harm claim (in other words, why didn’t the plaintiff move for preliminary injunctive relief if its damages were so dire?).
The Court noted that a permanent injunction would be too “costly” as it would require defendants to reverse several years worth of efforts in building up their competing staffing firm. Tradesman, at *7-8.
The Seventh Circuit also found the non-competes signed by the defendants unreasonable under Ohio law. A contractual choice-of-law clause provided that Ohio law would govern (The plaintiff was an Ohio corporation.)
Ohio considers a restrictive covenant’s time and space limitations, whether trade secrets or confidential information are/is involved, whether the employer seeks to stifle ordinary competition, and the detrimental impact on the employee’s livelihood. Id. at *9.
Applying the factors, the Tradesman Court found that the proprietary information which plaintiff sought to protect was unreasonable. The Court noted that the information plaintiff was suing on – worker’s compensation and manager compensation rates, marketing materials and Dun & Bradstreet reports – was either publicly available, generally known or was information that the plaintiff didn’t try to keep secret. *8-9.
A plaintiff generally has to show that it tried to keep information confidential (under “lock and key”) for that information to qualify as a trade secret.
The Court also found the non-competes’ geographic restrictions unreasonable. They were so expansive, they were basically nation-wide restraints. To comply with the non-competes as written, the defendants really couldn’t work anywhere in the U.S. *9-10.
1/ publicly available or generally known information will not qualify for proprietary or trade secret information protection;
2/ restrictive covenants that don’t involve true trade secrets or proprietary information and that have nation-wide reach (“you can’t work anywhere in the U.S.”, e.g.) will not be enforced; and
3/ the party that loses a trade secrets case may have to pay the winning party’s fees even if the party had good faith belief in its claim when it filed the lawsuit – but later learns that its claim lacks merit (and still presses forward with the case).