Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose when plaintiff filed suit against its former employee and the employee's new employer for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming, among other things, that the new employer had solicited and accepted business from clients and prospects of plaintiff who were serviced by the new employer or where the new employer supervised the solicitation of activities related to the client or potential client. At issue on appeal was whether a covenant not to compete signed by a valued employee in consideration for stock options, designed to give the employee a greater stake in the company's performance, was unenforceable as a matter of law because the stock options did not give rise to an interest in restraining competition. The court held that, under the terms of the Covenants Not to Compete Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 15, the consideration for the noncompete agreement was reasonably related to the company's interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the Act recognized as worthy of protection. The noncompete was thus not enforceable on that basis. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Petitioner filed suit against respondent for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Respondent had been employed by petitioner since 1983 and rose to become a managing director. In 2005, respondent signed a Non-Solicitation Agreement and notice form stating that he wanted to exercise a stock option to acquire 3000 shares of stock of petitioner's parent company. At issue was whether a covenant not to compete signed by a valued employee in consideration for stock options, designed to give the employee a greater stake in the company's performance, was unenforceable as a matter of law because the stock options did not give rise to an interest in restraining competition. The court held that, under the terms of the Covenants Not to Compete Act (Act), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 15.50, 52, the consideration for the noncompete agreement (stock options) was reasonably related to the company's interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the Act recognized as worthy of protection. Therefore, the noncompete was not unenforceable on that basis. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeal's judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Marcos Guerra was buried at Mont Meta Memorial Park cemetery in a plot that had been sold to someone else. When his family refused the cemetery's request that it be allowed to move the body to another burial plot, the cemetery did so anyway. Guerra's family members subsequently sued defendants, the corporation that owned and operated the cemetery and its parent corporation. At issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to support jury findings that defendants were liable for actions of the cemetery's employees and whether plaintiffs suffered compensable mental anguish because Guerra's body was disinterred and moved to another grave without permission. Also at issue was whether evidence of other lawsuits against defendants was properly admitted. The court held that there was legally insufficient evidence to support either the liability findings or mental anguish findings. The court also held that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other lawsuits, verdicts, and judgments and that such evidence was harmful and required the case to be remanded for a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, rendered judgment in part, and remanded for a new trial in part.

Respondent filed a sex discrimination suit against petitioner alleging violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. Lab. Code 21.001-.556, where petitioner terminated its employment of respondent citing as the basis for its decision a reduction in force due to worsening business conditions. The parties sought arbitration and petitioner appealed the arbitrator's reward. At issue was whether the Texas General Arbitration Act ("TAA"), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 171.001-.098, precluded an agreement for judicial review of an arbitration award for reversible error, and if not, whether the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 1-16, preempted enforcement of such an agreement. The court held that the TAA presented no impediment to an agreement that limited the authority of an arbitrator in deciding a matter and thus allowed for judicial review of an arbitration award for reversible error. The court also held that the FAA did not preempt enforcement of an agreement to expanded judicial review of an arbitration award enforceable under the TAA. The court further held that, on remand, the court of appeals must determine whether the record was sufficient to review petitioner's complaints. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals must be reversed and the case remanded to that court for consideration of the merits of petitioner's challenges to the arbitration award.