CHICAGO — A federal court has ruled in favor of an employee involved in a trade secrets and non-solicitation dispute with a former employer, continuing a pattern by Chicago federal judges of overturning, or limiting the scope, of employment agreements, according to a Chicago employment lawyer.
In June, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly sided with defendant Lori Beth Anzine over the scope of a non-solicitation agreement she had signed with her former employer, Call One, and also rejected the employer's claim that documents taken from the company were confidential.
While the lasting impacts of the decision have yet to be seen, it continues a local trend, said Michael Furlong, an employment attorney with Fisher Phillips in Chicago.
Michael Furlong
| Fisher Phillips
"It is another case that deals with the issue of non-solicitation where the court sides with the employee," Furlong told The Cook County Record.
The non-solicitation provision in an agreement that Anzine signed while working for Call One was overbroad, Kennelly ruled.
Under the agreement, Anzine, who worked for the telecommunications provider since the early 1990s, was barred from soliciting business from any past, present or future customer of the company.
But this was too broad, the judge said, as she should be able to solicit those she had no contact with, or personal knowledge of, during her employment.
Furlong described the cases as "very fact dependent" in that each is taken on its own merits, but it is one of a number favorable to employees.
Courts in Illinois are "closely scrutinizing non-solicitation agreements," including provisions barring contacting customers they never had any interaction with, Furlong said.
This case centered on an employee being prevented from contacting any Call One customers since 2003.
Furlong said Illinois employers should limit such provisions barring solicitation only to customers and others with whom the employee had a relationship or regular contact.
The judge laid out the parameters under which an agreement should pass muster, limiting it to a list of customers or potential customers at termination date, and to customers for which the employee had responsibility during employment.
Call One also claimed Anzine, as she was leaving, violated trade secrets by taking a "customer report" book with a list of client names,
But the judge sided with Anzine, saying the book was not marked confidential, which company policy dictated it should have been if it is a trade secret.
"If there is a company document believed to be a trade secret, and the company has a policy requiring such documents to be marked as such, it should be marked confidential," Furlong said.
And, in the wake of this case and others, it is "never a bad idea to take a second look" at the wording and structure of non-solicitation provisions within contracts, Furlong added.