Reeves v. Hanlon
17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289, 33 cal. 4th 1140, 95 P.3d 513 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may sue a competitor for interfering with its at-will employment relationships, but only if the competitor engaged in an independently wrongful act to induce the employee's departure. Mere solicitation or offering a better job is not, by itself, an independently wrongful act.
Facts:
- Daniel P. Hanlon and Colin T. Greene were attorneys employed by Robert L. Reeves's law firm, which had an at-will employment policy.
- For over five months before their departure, Hanlon and Greene accessed the firm's password-protected database and printed confidential information for approximately 2,200 clients.
- During this period, they also fomented dissatisfaction among the firm's other employees.
- On June 30, 1999, Hanlon and Greene resigned abruptly and without notice, leaving no status reports or lists of deadlines for the hundreds of client matters they were handling.
- Shortly before resigning, Greene intentionally erased extensive computer files, including client documents and form files, from the firm's server.
- The evening of their resignations, Hanlon and Greene began personally soliciting Reeves's key employees and clients.
- As a result, nine of Reeves's employees left within 60 days, with six joining the new firm formed by Hanlon and Greene.
- Over the next year, 144 of Reeves's clients transferred their business to Hanlon and Greene's new firm.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert L. Reeves and his law firm sued former employees Daniel P. Hanlon and Colin T. Greene, and their new firm, in a California superior court (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found for the plaintiffs, Reeves, on claims including intentional interference and misappropriation of trade secrets, and awarded damages.
- The defendants, Hanlon and Greene, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the interference and misappropriation claims.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve the issue of liability for interference with at-will employment contracts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a defendant be held liable for intentional interference with a contractual relationship for inducing another's at-will employee to terminate their employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes. A defendant may be held liable for inducing the termination of an at-will employment relationship, but the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act. The court reasoned that interference with an at-will contract is more analogous to interference with a prospective economic advantage than interference with a fixed-term contract because the relationship is not guaranteed to continue. Therefore, the higher standard for the prospective advantage tort applies, requiring the plaintiff to show the defendant's conduct was 'proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.' This standard appropriately balances the public policy favoring employee mobility and robust competition with the policy of protecting businesses from unlawful or unfair competitive tactics. In this case, Hanlon and Greene's actions—including misappropriating trade secrets, destroying computer files, and orchestrating their departure to cripple their former firm—constituted independently wrongful acts that supported liability for interfering with Reeves's at-will employee relationships.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal standard in California for tortious interference with at-will employment contracts by aligning it with the standard for interference with prospective economic advantage. It raises the bar for plaintiffs by requiring proof of an 'independently wrongful act,' thereby protecting legitimate business competition and employee mobility. By rejecting the holding in GAB Business Services, Inc., the court confirms that employers can bring such claims, but only when a competitor's conduct crosses the line from fair competition into unlawful action. This creates a more predictable framework for determining liability when one company hires employees from a competitor.
