Ecology Services, Inc. v. Clym Environmental Services, LLC
181 Md.App. 1, 952 A.2d 999, 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1704 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Maryland, non-competition covenants in employment contracts are enforceable only if they are reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests (such as trade secrets, customer lists, or unique services/contacts), do not impose undue hardship on the employee, and do not disregard the interests of the public.
Facts:
- Ecology Services, Inc. (ESI), a waste management services company, held two competitively-bid contracts with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for package delivery and radioactive waste management.
- Clym Environmental Services, LLC (Clym), a competitor, was owned by former ESI employees.
- In 1997, ESI required four employees—Jerriel Neloms, Osborne Raymond, Kenneth Eubanks, and Robert Volkert—to sign non-disclosure and non-competition covenants as a condition of their continued employment.
- In 2004, ESI lost the NIH Package Delivery Contract to Clym because ESI no longer qualified as a 'small business' for the set-aside contract; Neloms, who worked on this contract, ceased employment with ESI in December 2004 and was hired by Clym in February 2005 to perform the same duties at NIH.
- In 2005, ESI lost the NIH Radioactive Waste Contract to Clym after Clym submitted a successful bid; Raymond, Eubanks, and Volkert, who worked on this contract, ceased employment with ESI in August 2005.
- Raymond, Eubanks, and Volkert subsequently began working for Clym at the NIH in the same or similar capacities: Eubanks and Volkert in August 2005, and Raymond in December 2005.
- ESI offered Raymond, Eubanks, and Volkert other job opportunities within the company, but these involved different job functions, significant pay cuts (for Eubanks), or were ultimately unsuitable (for Raymond), while Neloms had no other job offers from ESI.
- The employees' jobs involved tasks like delivering radioactive materials, compacting radioactive waste, and collecting waste, with specific educational and training requirements but were not deemed 'unique' or involving significant personal customer goodwill.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 6, 2005, Ecology Services, Inc. (appellant) filed a verified complaint in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, seeking injunctive relief and alleging breach of non-competition covenants by Robert Volkert, Kenneth Eubanks, Jerriel Neloms, Osborne Raymond, and Clym Environmental Services, LLC (appellees).
- On January 31, 2006, appellant filed a verified amended complaint.
- On February 27, 2006, appellees filed an answer to appellant’s amended complaint.
- On April 13, 2007, appellees filed motions for summary judgment on all claims in the amended complaint.
- On June 12, 2007, the Circuit Court for Frederick County held a hearing on appellees’ motions for summary judgment.
- On July 2, 2007, the Circuit Court for Frederick County entered an opinion and order granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment as to all claims and denied appellant’s request for attorney’s fees.
- Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-competition covenant enforceable against former employees, who held low-level positions, when the employer fails to demonstrate that the employees possess unique skills, exploited personal customer contacts, or misused trade secrets, and when enforcement would impose undue hardship on the employees and potentially harm public interest in the context of competitively-bid government contracts?
Opinions:
Majority - James R. Eyler
No, the non-competition covenants are not enforceable against the former employees. The court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment, finding that Ecology Services, Inc. (ESI) failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the necessity of the covenants to protect its business interests, the uniqueness of the employees' skills, or that enforcement would not impose undue hardship. The court reasoned that ESI did not present facts showing that the employees' personal contacts with the NIH were essential to securing or retaining the competitively-bid contracts; rather, success was attributable to price and quality of performance. The skills and experience gained by the employees did not qualify as 'unique or specialized' because they did not make it difficult to find substitutes, and skills acquired during employment generally do not warrant enforcement. Furthermore, enforcement would impose undue hardship on the employees, given their long tenure in those specific roles, the nature of the alternative employment offered by ESI (different job functions, significant pay cuts, or unsuitability), and the lack of alternative opportunities for one employee. Finally, invalidating the covenants serves the public interest by promoting market competition and ensuring the federal government's access to trained personnel.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high burden an employer faces in Maryland when seeking to enforce non-competition clauses, particularly against employees in non-managerial or 'low-level' positions. It emphasizes that in competitive bidding environments, personal contacts are less likely to be considered a protectable business interest, and that possessing specific job requirements or acquired skills does not automatically equate to 'unique services.' The decision underscores the judiciary's consideration of undue hardship on employees and the public interest, setting a precedent that protects employee mobility unless the employer can prove a clear and substantial threat to truly legitimate and specific business interests, not merely competition from former employees.
