July 1, 2022

Volume XII, Number 182

Advertisement
Advertisement

July 01, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Yet Another Tale of (Alleged) LinkedIn Indiscretion in a Non-Compete Matter

For those of you following the saga our Employee Mobility Practice Group has been documenting about the many ways in which social media appears to be impacting the non-compete world, I present to you yet another case that highlights the treasure trove of evidence that LinkedIn may provide.

The plaintiff-employer in Nicklas Associates, Inc. v. Zimet sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against its former employee after learning about the former employee’s post-employment competitive activities through misdirected emails and a change to her LinkedIn profile.  But this time, the offending activity wasn’t the use of LinkedIn to source customers in an extra-contractual manner; rather, it was the change in the former employee’s LinkedIn profile description about her new employment that ignited the dispute.  At issue was whether the former employees’ profile change to describe herself as a “creative recruiter” violated her non-compete agreement, which banned her from engaging in the business of placing employees in the fields of creative and marketing communications.   A Marylad federal court judge rejected the plaintiff-employer’s argument at the TRO stage, not on the merits, but because the employer was unable to demonstrate the irreparable harm posed to its business by the employee’s new position – here, because the employer could not show that they lost any business to her new employer in the 4 months since she left.  Because irreparable harm was absent, the court did not analyze the likelihood of success of the employer’s claim.

While this matter stalled with the irreparable harm anaysis, litigants should note that some states follow the rule that irreparable harm is presumed upon proof that a non-compete violation has occurred.  And LinkedIn may present itself, once again, as a valuable source of evidence for that purpose.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 356
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Jennifer Rubin Employment Attorney Mintz
Member

Jen draws on 30 years of experience crafting legal solutions to employment challenges. Her clients include small and large businesses and individual representation of executives. She advises technology, financial services, publishing, retail, professional services, and health care companies seeking regulatory, litigation, and compliance advice. She divides her employment practice between wage and hour compliance and trial practice, with a focus on class actions, trade secrets and employment mobility disputes, and the defense of discrimination, retaliation and other disputes arising from...

858.314.1550
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement