No, the company cannot enforce the non-compete agreement. The judge explained that a non-compete is a two-way street. The company agrees to employ you, and you agree not to compete if you leave. If the company breaks its side of the deal by firing you without a good reason related to your performance (like a layoff), it loses the right to enforce your side of the deal. It's unfair for a company to fire someone and then try to control where they work next. The judge also threw out the company's other claims because they had no real proof, just a statement from someone who was guessing about what happened.

No, the company can't stop Olshen and Kluge from working with its customers. This is because UFG fired them for no good reason - just because the company was having money problems. When a company fires workers for no good reason, it can't then stop them from working wherever they want. It's not fair to the workers. Also, UFG didn't follow the rules it had agreed to when firing Olshen, which is another reason it can't stop him from working with its customers. As for the secret information UFG said Olshen and Kluge took, there wasn't enough proof. The only person who said they took secret information didn't actually see it happen, so that doesn't count as good evidence in court.

No, a restrictive covenant is not enforceable under these circumstances. An employee's otherwise enforceable restrictive covenant becomes unenforceable if the employee has been terminated involuntarily without cause. Citing Post v. Merrill Lynch, the court reasoned that when an employer terminates the employment relationship without cause, it destroys the mutuality of obligation on which the covenant rests. It is fundamentally unfair to permit an employer who has breached the implicit promise of continued employment to then benefit from a covenant that restricts the employee's ability to find comparable work. The court held that termination for the employer's financial hardship does not constitute 'cause' for the purposes of enforcing a restrictive covenant, as an essential element of enforceability is the employer's continued willingness to provide employment. The court also granted summary judgment on the misappropriation claims because the plaintiff failed to present any admissible evidence, relying instead on a declaration made 'on information and belief' by an individual without personal knowledge of the events.

No. The restrictive covenants are not enforceable against Olshen and Kluge because they were terminated without cause. Under New York law, restrictive covenants are enforceable only if reasonably limited in scope and duration, necessary to protect the employer from unfair competition, and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. However, even a reasonably limited covenant becomes unenforceable if the employer breaches the employment agreement or terminates the employee without cause. In this case, UFG terminated Olshen and Kluge solely due to the company's financial difficulties, which does not constitute 'cause' for the purpose of enforcing restrictive covenants. The termination destroyed the mutuality of obligation on which the covenants rest. Additionally, UFG failed to comply with the specific termination provisions in Olshen's agreement, further barring enforcement of his covenant. Regarding the claims of misappropriation of confidential information, the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence to support these allegations. The only evidence provided was a declaration based on information and belief from someone without personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct. As the party with the burden of proof, the plaintiff's failure to show a genuine issue of fact for trial warrants summary judgment on these claims as well.

Nisselson v. DeWitt Stern Group, Inc. (In Re UFG International, Inc.)

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot