April 7, 2020

April 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Eight Steps to Protect Your Clients and Competitive Intelligence During Key Employee Departures

When a key employee resigns, immediate, meaningful enforcement of non-solicit, non-compete and confidentiality agreements is vital. Collaborating with legal counsel early in the enforcement process can save time and money. A proactive enforcement plan can prevent the loss of client relationships, unfair competition and disclosure of competitive intelligence. Time is of the essence, including steps an employer takes day one. 

These are the immediate steps an employer facing imminent risk should take:

1. Demand adherence to restrictive covenants in writing

An employer should provide key former employees with a written demand for adherence to applicable restrictive covenants. This demand can take several different forms depending on the imminence of the risk, and it may be advantageous for counsel to make the demand immediately. Alternatively, counsel can advise in the background while you communicate directly with the employee. An immediate written demand has several benefits:

  • It prevents the employee from later claiming he or she was unaware of the covenants or did not think the employer was serious about enforcement.

  • It gives the employer the chance to articulate activity that violates the covenants. It may be that the employee is receiving poor advice from a new employer, or independently has an erroneous belief that contemplated plans will not violate the covenants. Articulating actions that will trigger enforcement proceedings may deter the employee’s violation, or at least plant a seed of doubt in an otherwise emboldened employee.

  • If enforcement proceedings are ultimately necessary, a letter memorializing the employer’s position at the outset can form the basis for a court to conclude the employee’s subsequent violations were knowing and intentional.

2. Request an exit interview

A key employee planning to violate restrictive covenants may not be willing to attend an exit interview. However, some might. If an employee agrees to attend, counsel can assist in preparing talking points and questions that serve the following goals:

  • Probe about the employee’s new employer, reasons for leaving and plans to compete. An admission that the employee plans to violate a restrictive covenant is compelling evidence in court and can assist an employer that needs to seek a restraining order to prevent unfair competition. If an employee lies about plans to violate a restrictive covenant, the lie itself can bolster the employer’s argument that court intervention is necessary.

  • An exit interview is an optimal time to deliver the written demand for compliance discussed above, as it may trigger dialogue about the restrictive covenants and the employer’s expectations.

  • Even if the employee declines the exit interview, or does not respond, those actions are additional facts that may bolster the employer’s narrative and inform how the employer proceeds.

3. Halt the destruction of information and property

The preservation of information and property is critical. On day one, all employer property used by, or in the possession of, the departing employee should be retained, and care should be taken not to alter valuable electronic data. In particular, employee laptops and other electronic equipment should be not scrubbed or repurposed for other employees until a preservation plan has been developed with counsel.

4. Prepare remaining employees to ask about violations

Client facing employees are often the first to know if a former employee violates a restrictive covenant. Those same employees are also the most likely to be potential witnesses for the employer if legal enforcement proceedings are required. As such, it is best to equip those employees with talking points that support key legal theories and an action plan for conveying information to company leadership.

5. Protect intellectual property and intangible assets

Consider any involvement the transitioning employee has with intellectual property and other intangible assets. If signatures or documentation are required – for example, for pending patent applications or other intellectual property filings - that paperwork will be much easier to have completed by a departing employee at or near the time of exit. If the employee has access to customer lists, software or content hosted by third parties, access should be terminated and passwords changed, as applicable. Employers should similarly ensure that they have control of any social media accounts, domain name registrations and website content.

6. Track losses

Establishing a plan to track losses is critical, and daily tracking is optimal. A court deciding an enforcement proceeding will want to meaningfully understand current losses and future risk, and the employer should be ready to respond conclusively to that fundamental question. It is far easier to have a system in place at the outset than to retroactively account for losses when time is of the essence. Moreover, the rapidity of loss can itself evidence improper competitive behavior.

7. Consider an e-forensic investigation

An employer should consider an e-forensic investigation, including the engagement of outside counsel to manage activities the employer may want to deem privileged. While the ways an employee can steal competitive intelligence is limited only by the employee’s creativity, evidence of theft is invaluable. For that reason, e-forensics are often worth the investment and, in any event, the employer should ask counsel to explain the investigatory tools available and the associated costs.

8. Litigation options

Litigation is often an appropriate step when a key employee violates restrictive covenants. A key decision for the employer who decides to litigate is whether to pursue a suit for damages only or a suit for damages plus a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order or injunction. A damages only suit may have helpful deterrent effect, is less costly and allows time to negotiate a resolution. But, if an employer will be irreparably harmed without an expedited court order requiring the employee to stop improper behavior or return stolen data, an emergency motion may be necessary. Discovery permissible through litigation can also be a valuable tool, as it allows an employer to investigate an employee’s competitive plans rather than relying on voluntary disclosures or unaided investigation of an employee’s surreptitious conduct.

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Maggie Cook Litigation Attorney
Associate

Maggie Cook is a member of Godfrey & Kahn’s Litigation Practice Group and practices in the firm’s Milwaukee office.

Maggie represents a broad range of clients in a variety of complex commercial disputes including: labor and employment litigation, financial services litigation, real estate and construction litigation, contract actions, and business torts. Maggie has litigated in state and federal trial and appellate courts and before various administrative agencies.

Maggie maintains an active labor and employment litigation practice. She has experience representing...

414-287-9569
Jennifer Gregor Intellectual Property Attorney Godfrey Kahn
Shareholder

Jennifer Gregor is a shareholder in the firm’s Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Groups, and is the co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. Jennifer is a registered patent attorney who assists clients with all aspects of intellectual property, including procurement, clearance, and enforcement.

Jennifer is the immediate past president of the Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association. She has litigated cases in district courts across the country and in the Seventh, Ninth, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and has experience representing clients in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and in oppositions, cancellations, and appeals at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Jennifer’s patent litigation experience includes cases relating to sporting goods, consumer appliances, engine and automotive technologies, call centers, and internet based technologies. She has also litigated trademark, advertising, unfair competition, copyright, licensing, and trade secret cases in a wide variety of industries including banking services, consumer products, healthcare, food products, and restaurant services.

Jennifer regularly counsels clients regarding the management of intellectual property assets, including patent and trademark prosecution, managing domestic and international patent and trademark portfolios, and agreements relating to intellectual property. She is experienced in advertising law, contests and promotions, product clearance, domain name matters, and internet issues.

Jennifer received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her law degree from DePaul University School of Law, summa cum laude. Prior to attending law school, she worked as a product specialist at Abbott Laboratories where she worked with HIV and hepatitis diagnostic assays and at Monsanto Company where she worked on a team that conducted a scale-up of a protein purification process from laboratory to pilot plant. Before joining Godfrey & Kahn, Jennifer practiced law in Chicago at a large national law firm.

Jennifer was named a “Rising Star” in intellectual property by Super Lawyers magazine, and is recognized in Chambers USA as a leading intellectual property lawyer in Wisconsin.

608.284.2629
Maria L. Kreiter, complex litigation attorney, Godfrey Kahn, law firm
Shareholder

Maria L. Kreiter is a shareholder in the litigation group of Godfrey & Kahn's Milwaukee office. Her practice focuses on complex business litigation, primarily in the areas of banking and financial services, business torts, contracts, corporate governance, consumer claims, and white collar defense and internal investigations. 

414-287-9466
Margaret Kurlinski, Labor & Employment Attorney with Godfrey Kahn
Associate

Meg Kurlinski is an associate member of Godfrey & Kahn's Labor and Employment Practice Group. Meg assists clients with a variety of labor and employment matters, including the management of day-to-day employment matters, drafting and enforcing restrictive covenant agreements, administering family and medical leave laws, litigating federal and state discrimination claims, conducting unlawful harassment investigations, and drafting affirmative action plans.

414-287-9539
Rebeca Lopez, Labor & Employment Attorney with Godfrey Kahn
Associate

Rebeca Lόpez is an associate in the Labor, Employment & Immigration Practice Group in the Milwaukee office.

414-287-9634