It is commonly accepted that to enforce a noncompete agreement against an unfaithful employee, the employer first needs to have a signed, written agreement with that employee. However, a new decision from a federal court in the Western District of Michigan, Stryker Corporation v. Ridgeway, has splashed some cold water on that notion. The employer in Stryker sued a former employee for breach of his noncompete agreement. Unfortunately for the company, it had no signed version of the noncompete. Jumping on this opportunity, the employee moved for summary judgment, arguing that the company could not prove that he breached the agreement because it could not produce admissible evidence that he entered into the agreement. To support his position, the employee produced statements from his co-workers that he had no noncompete, and he also highlighted that there were no witnesses who saw him sign the document. Sounds pretty bad for the employer, right? Well, the company had a few cards of its own to play: the company used a standard noncompete that it required employees to sign as a condition of employment. In other words, the employee could not have worked for the company unless he had signed the noncompete. Also, while it did not have a signed copy of the noncompete, it was able to produce a fax cover sheet from the employee where he returned signed versions of not only his offer letter, but also the noncompete. In the end, the court determined that this evidence was sufficient to deny summary judgment. Helping out in this regard was a Michigan statute (Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 66.132(1)) which provides that a “party seeking to enforce an agreement need not produce a written copy of the agreement, as long as the party can produce some written evidence that establishes the agreement’s essential terms.” The fax cover sheet, the standard noncompete form and the testimony of company witnesses that it would not have hired the employee without signing the noncompete, presented enough evidence of the agreement and its essential terms to send the case to a jury. While the result ultimately was good for the company, careful employers who use noncompetes should consider a few things before trying to enforce a phantom noncompete. First and foremost, the company only got past summary judgment. It still needs to convince a jury that (a) there was a noncompete and (b) the employee breached it. Second, the best practice remains having a document fully executed by all parties that can be located when it matters. If the employer in this case had such a document and kept it in a safe place, it would not have had to (a) worry about summary judgment, (b) prove up the fact that it had a standard form agreement and (c) prove that it would not have hired the employee without signing the agreement. Instead, it would simply have pulled the signed agreement from the employee’s file and attached it to the complaint. Every year, employers spend considerable sums of money paying attorneys to draft enforceable non-competes. It does no good to go to all of that effort only to lose the document when the time comes. With that in mind, employers should make sure that if they present a noncompete to an employee – particularly a new hire – that the person signs the document before starting work and that the document is properly filed. It would not hurt to make a copy of the signed agreement and give the copy to the employee (with the company keeping the original in its files). That way, there are two copies of the document in existence. Additionally, considering that unfaithful employees have been known to access their personnel files and remove things like their signed noncompete only to later pretend that they never had one, it might also not be a bad idea to have a separate file with another copy of the non-compete – either physical or electronic – that employees cannot access. Finally, what saved the employer in this case was application of the Michigan statute and the company’s ability to convincingly rely upon its standard practices – specifically, the evidence that it (a) had a standard noncompete and (b) only hired the employee because he had signed the standard noncompete. Employers outside of Michigan may not have the benefit of pointing to standard practices to save a noncompete that is based on an unsigned form document. While using a standard form at least gives an employer something to point to if – as in this case – it cannot locate the actual signed document, this is no substitute for an actual signed agreement. Employers who have noncompetes should make certain that the documents are properly signed by both the employee and the company, and that the documents are kept a secure location so they can be located when needed.
Enforcing The Phantom Noncompete: Michigan Court Allows Employer To Pursue Noncompete Claim In The Absence Of A Written Document Signed By Employee
Hannesson Murphy
PartnerRELATED ARTICLES
MIOSHA Amends COVID-19 Emergency Rules
May 24, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Shortened Limitations Agreements for State Law Claims Remain Viable in Michigan
February 10, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
Michigan Employers Get New Year Relief With Revised COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Law
December 30, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
Does Michigan Require Two-Party Consent to Record a Private Conversation?
October 8, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Privacy
Amended Michigan Paid Medical Leave Act in Jeopardy? Stay Tuned
December 27, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Leave
MIOSHA Amends COVID-19 Emergency Rules
May 24, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Shortened Limitations Agreements for State Law Claims Remain Viable in Michigan
February 10, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
Michigan Employers Get New Year Relief With Revised COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Law
December 30, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
Does Michigan Require Two-Party Consent to Record a Private Conversation?
October 8, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Privacy
Amended Michigan Paid Medical Leave Act in Jeopardy? Stay Tuned
December 27, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Leave
Michigan Court of Appeals: Construction Lien Can’t Exceed Contract Value
September 27, 2019 | Construction Law, Lien Law
Michigan Employers Act Before the Payroll Fraud Enforcement Unit Comes Knocking
September 17, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
Florida Court Likens State’s New Non-Compete Restriction to Swamp Monster
September 4, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets
Non-Compete Roundup: New Hampshire, Maine and Washington
July 16, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets
Paid Sick Leave And Minimum Wage: What's Next For Michigan Employers
September 10, 2018 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Does Your Non-Compete Agreement Survive Under Massachusetts’ New Non-Compete Law?
August 14, 2018 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
ICE Raids on 7-Eleven Franchise Stores Result in 21 Arrests
January 12, 2018 | Employment Lessons, High Stakes Employment Issues, Currents - Employment Law
Ohio ‘Reverse’ Racial Discrimination Ruling Reinforces Employers’ Advantage in Constructive Discharge Cases
September 30, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Noncompetes Q&A: A Look at Ohio
April 3, 2017 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
The Three Seats of Noncompetes: Mistakes We See When Employees Move
January 31, 2017 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Does New Illinois Law Signify A Third Frontier of Noncompete State-by-State Variations?
September 19, 2016 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Pro-Enforcement Noncompete Decision from Wisconsin Supreme Court
May 18, 2015 | High Stakes Employment Issues, Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
7 Questions Employers Should Ask Themselves Every Year
February 2, 2015 | Letter of the Law, Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Follows Illinois in Key Noncompete Decisions from the Heartland
September 5, 2014 | Letter of the Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Back to School for Michigan Employers – Minimum Wage Increase
August 21, 2014 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
No, it’s Not Groundhog Day – another state raises its minimum wage
May 28, 2014 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act Does Not Extend to Contract Employee seeking New Term of Employment
April 30, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Noncompetes: Michigan Decision Highlights Two Critical Decisions with Cease and Desist Letters
January 27, 2014 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
En Banc Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Portions of Michigan’s Constitutional Amendment on Affirmative Action
November 16, 2012 | Affirmative Action, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center