Campbell Soup Co. v. Desatnick
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16782, 1999 WL 553334, 58 F.Supp.2d 477 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-compete agreement is enforceable under New Jersey law if it protects an employer's legitimate interests in confidential information, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. Continued at-will employment, coupled with eligibility for discretionary stock options and a salary-continuation clause, constitutes sufficient consideration and demonstrates the agreement's reasonableness.
Facts:
- In 1994, Campbell Soup Company hired Robert L. Desatnick, who had previously managed Campbell's account at an advertising agency, as its Director of Advertising Services.
- Upon joining Campbell in 1994, Desatnick signed a confidentiality agreement but refused to sign a separate agreement containing a non-competition clause.
- In June 1996, Campbell required its executives, including Desatnick, to sign a non-competition agreement in order to remain eligible for discretionary stock option grants. Desatnick signed this agreement.
- In July 1997, Desatnick signed an updated 'Nonqualified Stock Option and Non-Competition Agreement' which is the subject of the dispute. This agreement included an 18-month non-compete period and a 'safety net' clause requiring Campbell to pay his full base salary if he could not find a suitable non-competing job.
- During his employment, Desatnick was promoted to Vice President of Global Advertising and Promotion and became part of Campbell’s 'Leadership Group,' giving him access to highly sensitive information, including three-year strategic plans, brand positioning strategies, pricing information, and analyses of brand vulnerabilities.
- In late 1998 and early 1999, while still employed by Campbell, Desatnick interviewed for the position of Chief Marketing Officer at The Pillsbury Company, a major competitor in key product areas like soup and salsa.
- During the interview process, Desatnick provided Pillsbury with his strategic ideas for restructuring its marketing department to improve its competitiveness.
- On April 8, 1999, Desatnick resigned from Campbell to accept the job offer from Pillsbury.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert L. Desatnick filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- Desatnick sought to enjoin his former employer, Campbell Soup Company, from enforcing a 1997 non-competition agreement that prevented him from accepting employment with The Pillsbury Company.
- The district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-competition agreement, signed by a high-level at-will employee as a condition for continued eligibility for discretionary stock options, violate New Jersey law when it prevents the employee from accepting a position with a direct competitor after he was exposed to highly confidential strategic plans?
Opinions:
Majority - Simandle, District Judge.
No. A non-competition agreement is enforceable under these circumstances because it is reasonably tailored to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. The court found that Campbell has a strong interest in protecting its highly sensitive and confidential strategic information, to which Desatnick was extensively exposed. This information, including future advertising campaigns, brand positioning, and financial forecasts, goes beyond general skills and constitutes a legitimate proprietary interest. The agreement does not impose an undue hardship on Desatnick, particularly because the 18-month restriction is mitigated by the 'safety net' provision that guarantees his salary and benefits, demonstrating the agreement's reasonableness and non-punitive intent. Furthermore, for an at-will employee, continued employment, eligibility for valuable stock options, and the 'safety net' itself all serve as adequate consideration for the agreement. Desatnick's claims of economic duress were dismissed, as conditioning discretionary benefits on signing a non-compete agreement is not a wrongful act.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the enforceability of non-compete agreements for high-level executives who possess sensitive strategic information, not just technical trade secrets. The court's emphasis on the 'safety net' or salary continuation clause provides a clear model for employers on how to draft reasonable and enforceable covenants; such a provision strongly counters arguments of undue hardship on the employee. The case also clarifies that for at-will employees, continued employment combined with discretionary, but valuable, incentives like stock options constitutes sufficient consideration. Finally, the opinion serves as a cautionary tale for employees, as the court viewed Desatnick's poor judgment and lack of candor as factors undermining his request for equitable relief.
