Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber
101 Ohio St.3d 242 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's forbearance from terminating an at-will employee constitutes sufficient consideration to support a noncompetition agreement that the employee signs after their employment has already commenced.
Facts:
- In 1988, Lee Columber began working for Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC ('Lake Land') as an at-will employee.
- In September 1991, three years after his employment began, Lake Land presented Columber with a noncompetition agreement.
- The agreement prohibited Columber from engaging in a competing business within a 50-mile radius of Akron, Ohio, for three years following the end of his employment.
- Columber signed the agreement but received no increase in salary, change in job duties, promotion, or other new benefits in exchange for his signature.
- Columber continued to work for Lake Land for approximately ten more years after signing the agreement.
- In 2001, Columber's employment with Lake Land ended.
- After his departure, Columber formed a corporation that engaged in a business similar to Lake Land's within the restricted area.
Procedural Posture:
- Lake Land Employment Group sued Lee Columber in the trial court for breach of contract, seeking damages and an injunction.
- Columber filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the noncompetition agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Columber, holding that the agreement lacked consideration.
- Lake Land, as appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Columber, the appellee.
- The court of appeals then certified that its judgment was in conflict with decisions from other appellate districts, sending the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review.
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 an employer's continuation of an at-will employment relationship constitute sufficient consideration to support a noncompetition agreement entered into by an existing employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Moyer, C.J.
Yes. Consideration exists to support a noncompetition agreement when an employer continues an at-will employment relationship in exchange for the employee's assent to the agreement. The presentation of a noncompetition agreement to an at-will employee is effectively a proposal to renegotiate the terms of employment. The employer's forbearance from its legal right to terminate the employee, and the employee's acceptance by signing and continuing to work, creates a bargained-for exchange. The employee's promise not to compete is given in exchange for the employer's promise to continue employment. While courts may not inquire into the adequacy of this consideration, the overall enforceability of the agreement must still be determined by whether its terms are reasonable under the test established in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah.
Dissenting - Resnick, J.
No. Continued employment in an at-will relationship does not constitute consideration because nothing of value is exchanged. The employment relationship remains unchanged; the employer relinquishes nothing, as it retains the same pre-existing right to terminate the employee at any time for any reason. The employee gains nothing beyond what they already had, which is employment that can be terminated at any moment. This lack of mutual benefit or detriment means there is no consideration, rendering the agreement an unenforceable 'exchange of nothing.'
Dissenting - Pfeifer, J.
No. An employer's agreement not to terminate an employee in exchange for signing a noncompetition agreement is not consideration, but rather coercion. Furthermore, treating forbearance from termination as consideration fundamentally alters the at-will employment relationship by creating an implied promise of continued employment for an undefined 'reasonable' period. This introduces uncertainty into the law. Employers should be required to provide separate, tangible consideration, such as a monetary payment, to ensure a noncompetition agreement is a distinct and fairly bargained-for contract.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Ohio with the majority of jurisdictions that recognize continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration for a noncompetition agreement. It provides clarity for employers, making it easier to implement such agreements with existing employees without offering additional compensation like a raise or bonus. The ruling shifts the focus of litigation over these agreements away from the issue of contract formation (consideration) and toward the substantive reasonableness of the restrictions (scope, duration, and hardship to the employee). The dissents highlight the potential for employer coercion and the erosion of the pure at-will employment doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber