Whyte v. Schlage Lock Company
125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277, 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 10594 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California law rejects the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine, which would allow a court to enjoin a former employee from working for a competitor based on an inference of threatened trade secret misappropriation. To obtain an injunction, an employer must instead present evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.
Facts:
- Schlage Lock Company (Schlage) and Kwikset Corporation (Kwikset) are direct and fierce competitors in the lock manufacturing industry.
- J. Douglas Whyte was Schlage's vice-president of sales, responsible for major accounts including The Home Depot, which accounted for 38% of Schlage's sales.
- Whyte signed a confidentiality agreement with Schlage but did not sign a covenant not to compete.
- In February 2000, Whyte was instrumental in a successful 'line review' with The Home Depot that resulted in Schlage gaining shelf space at Kwikset's expense.
- Impressed with Whyte's performance, Kwikset's president recruited him, and Whyte accepted a position with Kwikset on June 3, 2000.
- Whyte did not resign from Schlage until June 14, after he had participated in confidential meetings with The Home Depot on Schlage's behalf on June 5.
- Whyte's departure from Schlage on June 16 was acrimonious, with allegations of threats and theft of proprietary information.
- On June 25, 2000, Whyte began working for Kwikset as vice-president of sales for national accounts, a role with duties substantially similar to his former position at Schlage.
Procedural Posture:
- Ingersoll-Rand (Schlage's parent company) sued Whyte in Colorado state court, seeking an injunction based on the inevitable disclosure doctrine; the request was denied.
- Whyte then sued Ingersoll-Rand and Schlage in a California trial court, seeking damages and a declaration of his right to work for Kwikset.
- Schlage filed a cross-complaint against Whyte for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets.
- The California trial court granted Schlage's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Whyte from using or disclosing Schlage's alleged trade secrets.
- After expedited discovery and a hearing, the trial court denied Schlage's application for a preliminary injunction and granted Whyte's motion to dissolve the TRO.
- Schlage and Ingersoll-Rand (appellants) appealed the trial court's order denying the preliminary injunction to the California Court of Appeal.
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 California law permit a court to enjoin a former employee from working for a direct competitor under the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine, which presumes the employee will inevitably use the former employer's trade secrets in their new role, even without direct evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation?
Opinions:
Majority - Fybel, J.
No, California law rejects the inevitable disclosure doctrine as a basis for enjoining a former employee from working for a competitor. The court held that the doctrine is contrary to California's strong public policy favoring employee mobility, as codified in Business and Professions Code section 16600, which generally voids covenants not to compete. Adopting the doctrine would create a 'de facto' non-compete agreement after the fact, altering the employment relationship without the employee’s consent and chilling employee mobility. While an employer's trade secrets are protected, that protection does not extend to enjoining new employment based on a mere inference of future harm. An employer must prove actual or threatened misappropriation under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act; the inevitability of disclosure is not a substitute for such proof.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a definitive California precedent rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine, aligning the state with a minority of jurisdictions that prioritize employee mobility over employer protectionism absent concrete proof of misconduct. By refusing to infer wrongdoing, the court solidifies the high bar employers must meet to restrict a former employee's career choices. The ruling forces California employers to rely on evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation, or on narrowly drafted and enforceable contractual provisions, rather than a judicial doctrine that creates a non-compete agreement after the employment relationship has ended. It significantly impacts litigation strategy in trade secret cases, pushing plaintiffs to develop direct or strong circumstantial evidence of theft rather than relying on the employee's position and knowledge alone.
