The action is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by Amazon to enforce non-compete rules in employment contracts. In 2017, Amazon sued another former vice president who left Amazon Web Services to take a job at a software company in Seattle, but dropped the complaint shortly after filing. In 2019, Amazon filed a similar lawsuit against a former chief commercial officer of Amazon Web Services after he, too, left the company to take a job at Google Cloud. A judge ultimately agreed to partially limit some aspects of the employee`s role in Google, but dismissed parts of the restrictive pact as „unreasonable” and urged Amazon to take a uniform approach to its non-compete agreement. The recent complaint comes after Washington state passed a new law last year that severely limited the enforcement of non-competition bans within the state. We have already written here about this new law. Read also – Change of state in the non-competition law: the right of non-competition varies enormously from state to state. The choice of law is often decisive in cases of non-competition. Washington will impose reasonable non-competition obligations, but they are subject to many defences. The same case would have been totally different as a result of another state`s non-compete clause. Take Florida as an example. Florida is probably one of the most competitive states in the country.
That is not an exaggeration. I think the Florida courts routinely issue injunctions in non-competition cases where (1) there is no legitimate commercial interest and (2) there is no irreparable harm. It`s a problem. So if you put this case in Florida, Wells Fargo will get an injunction. Conclusion: the choice of law is essential in cases of non-competition. John Lavin worked for 27 years as Senior Executive Director for CVS, the last as Senior Vice President for Supplier Network Services at CVS Caremark, a Pharmacy Performance Manager (PBM). As such, Lavin negotiated with retail pharmacies on behalf of CVS Caremark. In May 2017, Lavin reached an agreement that contained an agreement not to compete with other restrictive agreements in exchange for limited share units worth $157,000, according to the court`s opinion. Lavin`s non-compete clause. Lavins sent him to work for a competitor 18 months after he left CVS.
Broker execs` non-compete agreement was not applicable But when Frieman left Fargo in 2016 to work for RCM-D, he allegedly actively courted 18 clients he had served while working at Wells Fargo and invited them to join RCM-D, which they did. USI bought Wells Fargo in 2017 and they are cited as the lead plaintiffs in the non-competition action against Frieman. First, the Court held that Wells Fargo would be likely to succeed in violating the probability of loyalty. In Washington, it is a black letter law that employees owe a duty of loyalty to their employers. That was the case here. The defendants owed Wells Fargo a duty of loyalty and, while employed by Wells Fargo, they were probably involved in conduct that violated that duty. In particular, records indicated that prior to leaving Wells Fargo, the defendants had recruited certain customers and convinced them to relocate their operations. And Wells Fargo made a big temporary disaster: almost all of BK`s customers – 98% – were in Wells Fargo.
Its expert proposed a report in which it stated that the company had lost $6.5 million in BK.