SUMMITS 7, INC. V. KELLY 886 A.2d 365 (2005) CASE BRIEF

SUMMITS 7, INC. V. KELLY

886 A.2d 365 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Kelly (D), former employee appealed from an order that enjoined her from violating her covenant not to compete with Summits (P), former employer. P argued that there was no consideration to support the covenant and that the trial court had failed even to consider whether the geographic scope of the covenant was unreasonably broad.

FACTS: P hired D, who had an associate's degree in graphic arts technology, to work in its customer services department for ten dollars an hour. D eventually became a sales assistant and received a fifteen percent raise. In three more months, she received another promotion and raise and, in November 2000, she was assigned to the sales department and given a $30,000 salary plus commissions. D eventually become a supervisor. Her pay increased along with the additional responsibilities, reaching $39,000 in 2001, $49,000 in 2002, and $19,000 for the first three months of 2003 before she left her employment. In January 2001, one year after P hired her, D signed a noncompetition agreement prohibiting her from working in Vermont, New Hampshire, or a designated part of New York for any direct or indirect competitor of P for a period of twelve months 'following termination of your employment for cause or a voluntary termination of employment.' Lasker signed a second agreement containing similar language in October 2002 after P purchased another company and expanded the kinds of services it provided. In April 2003, D voluntarily terminated her employment. Two months later, in June 2003, she began working for Offset House, Inc., a competitor of P located in nearby Essex Junction, Vermont. P filed a complaint seeking to enjoin D from working for Offset House. P got the judgment and $11,552 in attorney's fees. The court opined that D's continued employment with P was sufficient consideration to support the noncompetition agreement, but concluded that it was unnecessary to reach that question because the substantial promotions and raises that D received during her employment were more than reasonable consideration to support enforcement of the covenant. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner