Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Contracts Cases: 24
[Collective Bargaining Agreements
Read More
The appellants sought the reversal of a temporary injunction enjoining them from soliciting clients of their former employer. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court because the enforcement of a non-compete clause after the expiration of the employment agreement violates the Statute of Frauds. See Sanz v. R.T. Aerospace Corp., 650 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). At issue was one of the appellants
Read More
This case involved a salaried, at-will employee who sued her employer to recover longevity benefits under a written contract. The employer obtained final summary judgment on two grounds: that the employer had fully performed under the non-ambiguous contract and that the statute of limitations had run on the employee
Read More
Inverrary Gardens appealed an amended Partial Summary Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, on count I of her complaint which dealt with breach of an employment contract. The trial court found that there was no material issue of fact in dispute and ordered Inverrary to pay $95,011.44 to plaintiff. The court reversed. Affidavits were filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and clearly showed disputed issues of fact as to whether plaintiff
Read More
Domino sold his company to Northern Trust for a substantial
sum. As part of the agreement, Domino and his partners entered into employment
contracts with Northern Trust. Domino
Read More
This dispute arose out of an employment agreement and the granting of a temporary injunction as a prelude to the enforcement of a non-compete clause in that employment contract. The employee alleged that the employer materially breached the contract thereby making the non-compete clause unenforceable. The trial court ruled that the employer satisfied the burden of demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiff
Read More
The plaintiff challenged a final
judgment declining to grant him declaratory relief that his proposed drilling of four-inch
residential wells in Lee County, Florida would not violate the terms of his employment and
non-competition agreement with Diversified Drilling Corporation. Diversified also
appealed the trial court
Read More
Errick L.
Read More
Viacom hire the plaintiff to perform duties related to the development of new stores. Prior to the plaintiff
Read More
The employee left a job in TX to take a job with the plaintiff in Florida, but was fired shortly thereafter. The contract between the two indicated that the position was
Read More
The appellant signed what he alleged was a three year contract for employment that included two provisions, one for termination for cause, and the other for termination without cause and the benefits that would attach under such circumstances. When the appellant was fired
Read More
This case involves the rights of the parties in a non-compete provision in an employment contract. The radio personality signed a non-compete agreement with Fairbanks. Fairbanks subsequently sold the station to defendant-radio station (Clear Channel). Plaintiff, personal representative of a prominent radio personality, brought suit against defendant-radio station for interference with prospective advantage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-radio station holding that the non-assignability clause in the contract was ambiguous. The 4th DCA reversed finding the non-assignability clause to be unambiguous. The applicable clause reads:
Read More
Defendant was employed by plaintiff as a manager of used car operations. Defendant signed two non-compete agreements during the course of employment. Defendant left plaintiff-employer and went to work for a company in direct competition with plaintiff-employer. Plaintiff brought a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin defendant from working in direct competition with plaintiff.
Plaintiff must establish four elements in order to obtain a preliminary injunction: 1) a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits; 2) a threat that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; 3) the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the defendant; and 4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. The Court found that plaintiff established all four elements and granted the preliminary injunction. First, restrictive covenants are valid if the employer can prove the existence of a legitimate business interest and that the contractual restraint was reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the employer. Defendant had been exposed to confidential business information and confidential business information is considered a legitimate business interest. Second, if the plaintiff establishes a legitimate business interest then irreparable injury is
Read More
Employment contract gave the employee the right to terminate his contract with severance pay upon a Change in Control and under the provisions described in the contract (one such provision required a
Read More
Heather Dulin sued her employer, J.R.D. Management, for breach of contract, and J.R.D. and Robert Wiener, a J.R.D. principal, for fraud in the inducement. A jury found that an enforceable employment agreement existed between the parties, that J.R.D. breached the agreement by terminating Dulin without good cause, that Dulin was entitled to $ 15,000 in damages under the severance provision of the agreement, that J.R.D. did not fraudulently induce Dulin, but that Wiener did fraudulently induce Dulin entitling her to $ 31,875 in damages where she properly mitigated those damages. J.R.D. and Wiener appeal. Dulin claims that her employment agreement was created in a letter that she had sent to Wiener and J.R.D. In that letter, Dulin set her salary at $ 75,000 per year, allowed for the structuring of a bonus package of up to $ 25,000 per year, stated her titles as Regional Marketing Manager - South Florida and Property Manager - Windsor, and provided for car, cell phone, and laptop computer allowances. The letter also included a severance provision that provided: "If I am terminated for any reason other than good cause at any time during the first twelve months I will be given a severance payment of $ 15,000." Other than the severance provision, the letter contained no provision setting out time frames or stating a definite term of employment. The letter did not include a severability clause. The letter was signed by Wiener and later ratified by J.R.D. Forty-five days after beginning her employment, Dulin was released by Wiener and J.R.D.
On appeal the Wiener and J.R.D. argue that the letter was not an enforceable employment agreement for lack of a definite term of employment. They contended that Dulin was an at-will employee unable to bring a breach of contract or fraud in the inducement claim. The 4th District Court of Appeals agreed with Wiener and J.R.D. stating, the letter, clearly did not include a definite term of employment, making the agreement unenforceable and Dulin an at-will employee. The court further stated that, in Florida
Read More
Life insurance agent was properly found to be in violation of agreement in which he agreed not to solicit replacement insurance coverage with former employer's customers when he was contacted by his former clients and made a comparison for the former clients between benefits and premiums afforded by his former employer and his current employer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily enjoining former employee from soliciting sale of insurance to customers of former employer.
Read More
Ofstein was hired by Ware and signed an agreement containing a forum and venue selection clause. After she was terminated some months later, Ofstein sought compensation allegedly owed her and declaratory relief regarding the interpretation, validity and enforcement of the agreement. The trial court denied Ware's motion to dismiss for improper venue. Controlling law says that a forum selection clause in a non-compete agreement is enforceable provided that: (1) the forum was not chosen because of overwhelming bargaining power on the part of one party which would constitute overreaching at the other's expense; (2) enforcement would not contravene strong public policy enunciated by statute or judicial fiat, either in the forum where the suit would be brought or the forum from which the suit had been excluded; and (3) the purpose was not to transfer an essentially local dispute to a remote and alien forum in order to seriously inconvenience one or both parties. The court held it was not unreasonable and did not constitute overreaching for a foreign employer to require contract litigation in a forum where it was familiar with the law. The agreement was "take it or leave it" and Ofstein chose to take it. Further, nothing suggested the clause was included to inconvenience Ofstein. Thus, the case was remanded with instructions to grant the motion to dismiss.
Read More
Fox sued Frasher based on allegations of (1) diversion of business, customers, and profits in violation of Frasher
Read More
Nine hourly employees at the Quaker Oats
Read More
Cuillo appealed from a final summary judgment entered against him. McCoy cross-appealed the award of prejudgment interest. Cuillo argued that the five-year statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(2)(b) barred the enforcement of the debt because the default occurred more than five years before the suit was filed.
The court held that by application of section 95.01(1)(f), the partial payments made tolled the statute of limitations as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment. The court affirmed the finding that prejudgment interest should run from the notice of default to Cuillo.
Read More
Plaintiffs, employees of Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections, filed their action in November of 2001. Their duties included courtroom security and guard duty at the various correctional facilities in Miami-Dade County. In the past, Plaintiffs have simultaneously worked for the United States Marshal
Read More
The action was for breach of contract, and both parties found fault with the trial court
Read More
The court found that the trial court properly ruled that the Employment Agreement and the Special Incentive Agreement were separate contracts. The Special Incentive Agreement specifically provided that plaintiff would not qualify for incentive benefits unless he was employed as of December 31, 2000, and if employment was terminated for any reason whatsoever prior to the receipt of an incentive payment, Brink would not be eligible for an award. Since plaintiff was not employed as of December 31, 2000, he was not a participant in the Special Incentive Program. The court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff
Read More
The court found that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate business interest to justify entering an injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement. According to the court, even if the record contained a basis that would have supported the entering of an injunction, the injunction was overbroad to the extent that it prohibited the corporation from hiring anyone who had worked for the plaintiff/appellee. The court further found that the trial court was in error by ruling that it would not allow the individual appellant to introduce evidence that the appellee had breached the employment contract by failing to pay the individual appellant his salary.
Read More
