Toppling Goliath Sues ex-brewer over Non-Compete Violation

[Lefou]

My first job was with an outfit that had no compete agreements with a group of other logistical companies doing contracts for the government. It definitely doesn't benefit the employee to leave, and don't expect to be re-hired in that limited environment.
I went elsewhere and worked a contract for almost 10 years that spanned three different companies. All had IP clauses in their employment contracts, but my job didn't entail engineering or creating special hardware configurations. My NDA wasn't a corporate requirement, it was government-level, and had nothing to do with trade information or intellectual property.
At that level, you don't take the chance of violating an NDA because it will make you permanently unemployable.

 

[filthyastronaut]

Even if a non-compete had merits in *some* situations, I don't think this would ever be called for with breweries. The brewery I work for has an award-winning Tripel and they don't want the recipe to get out, even to homebrewers, but I didn't sign a non-compete to work there. Even if I left and used the same recipe at another brewery, that doesn't guarantee its success.

Also, this guy did sign a contract, but that doesn't make it a fair contract. He was likely in a position 2 years ago that made it a necessity. He may have simply needed the job and to be able to advance his career. Not sure of his prior experience, but this can be a hard industry to get into. When it comes to getting your foot in the door, beggars can't be choosers. That's why there are lots of stories from brewers about their first brewing job: poor wages, sometimes working for free, cleaning kegs and slaving away in the cellar. Depending on the situation, I may have signed a similar contract if I thought it would be good for my career.

 

[MaxStout]

Non-competes can be enforceable, if they are limited in scope. Courts generally will not enforce one that is overbroad geographically, or with too long of a time limit. Depending on the nature of the business, enforceability is usually no broader than the community or metro area, be no longer than 2 years (1 year is more common), and the NCA must specifically state what skills/job descriptions the employer is protecting. Some employers foolishly try to grab more in their NCAs, and end up having a court toss the whole thing when challenged. Better to carefully craft this language if you're going to use one at all. Courts try to balance business interests with employees' right to practice their trade. Courts in some states will not enforce employer-employee NCAs at all, and California has an outright ban on them.

If an employer is worried about formulae, processes, client lists, etc., being taken, they need to add a non-disclosure agreement, which is a different thing. This doesn't impinge on an employee's freedom to go to another similar job, it just limits what information the employee can disclose to another party. The NDA protects confidential business information. Typically, companies combine both the NCA and NDA into one paragraph on the employment contract, but the two components address different issues.

 

[shoreman]

Outside of the contract issue this is really a big brewery vs small brewery with the big guy trying to force its hand. Not going go well in the PR department for them. I mean come on, anyone can come up with a Hazy IPA or Pale recipe and throw some citra and mosaic dry hop all over it - its not rocket science or IP.

This guy just doesn't want the competition in his backyard - especially since they seem to have invested a good amount in their distro lately, I'm seeing those beers out in NE.

 

[hawkbox]

Jesus Christ some of you guys must be big fans of company towns.

 

[ancientmariner52]

Jesus Christ some of you guys must be big fans of company towns.

You don't need a non compete clause in a company town. There's nowhere else to work .... [emoji444] "I owe my soul to the company store" [emoji444]

 

[Braufessor]

This was in another thread - figured some here would be interested in it.
https://www.goodbeerhunting.com/sig...ut-over-toppling-goliaths-non-compete-lawsuit

 

[jonny24]

I've heard the rule of thumb (yeah, great method in a legal discussion ) is that if a contract has a non-enforcable clause, then go ahead and sign it rather than refuse and lose out on the rest. For example, rental agreements that don't allow pets. It's not a legal clause (here in Ontario), but if you try to make them take it out they'll just say "no, it's the standard agreement, you have to sign it or move on". But you just sign it, knowing they can't enforce it.

Not super relevant, but considering how often non-compete clauses are disallowed, not the worst risk to take. He got called on it, however, and has to put in the effort to prove it unenforcable.

So it's not just "he signed it so it's binding".

 

[hawkbox]

A surprising amount of people think just because you signed something you're irrevocably bound by it.

 

[shoengine]

A surprising amount of people think just because you signed something you're irrevocably bound by it.

Because generally that is how contracts work.

 

[smcinco]

Because generally that is how contracts work.

If TG was ‘asking’ existing employees to sign non-competes in exchange for keeping their jobs, any attorney worth their salt would successfully argue coercion, which would make a meeting of the minds impossible. That is not how contracts are supposed to work.

 

[hawkbox]

You guys are aware you can't sign away certain things just because they're in a contract right? I mean maybe in America you can, but not in the civilized world.

 

[ancientmariner52]

You guys are aware you can't sign away certain things just because they're in a contract right? I mean maybe in America you can, but not in the civilized world.

Isn't that what 'inalienable' (or is it unalienable, I can never remember) means? Inherent rights that you can't give away, even if you wanted to?

 

[dansensel]

I’d take a true gentlemen’s word and hand shake over a “legally binding contract” almost any day.

Contracts aren’t always binding.

And most employment contracts often just come down to who has the best lawyer or the strongest will (or deeper pockets) to follow through.

Pretty sure a gentlemen's word and handshake is still legally binding per contract law.
Way harder to enforce, but still a contract even without the paper.

 

[shoengine]

If TG was ‘asking’ existing employees to sign non-competes in exchange for keeping their jobs, any attorney worth their salt would successfully argue coercion, which would make a meeting of the minds impossible. That is not how contracts are supposed to work.

I said generally. Look at the post I quoted.

 

[smcinco]

I said generally. Look at the post I quoted.

This is ridiculous. Specific elements must exist for a contract to be enforceable.

 

[shoengine]

This is ridiculous. Specific elements must exist for a contract to be enforceable.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

When employees start writing contracts for their employers to sign on a regular basis, then I will believe that the contracts are there to protect the employees. The way the management employee relationship in America these days is you check your rights at the door and become part of The Fiefdom. I have zero sympathy for a company that requires someone to sign away their rights so that they can work. How about treating your employees well so that they want to stay instead of suing them into oblivion when they want to go somewhere else. Non-compete is anti-American. If you have 4 great breweries within 50 miles, that becomes a beer destination. Everyone wins and the beer is better for the competition.

 

[madscientist451]

Just because a company makes "craft beer" doesn't change the fact that MOST businesses #1 priority is to make as much profit as possible.
That's why a pint at a brewery tasting room cost $5 or more. Are they being "fair" to their customers when they could be selling their tasting room brew for far less and still be making a decent return on investment? People freely hand over their money for over-priced pints. Employees do the same thing, they freely sign a contract to get what they want. Why is anyone surprised that a company would do everything they can to exert control over their employees?

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Just because a company makes "craft beer" doesn't change the fact that MOST businesses #1 priority is to make as much profit as possible.
That's why a pint at a brewery tasting room cost $5 or more. Are they being "fair" to their customers when they could be selling their tasting room brew for far less and still be making a decent return on investment? People freely hand over their money for over-priced pints. Employees do the same thing, they freely sign a contract to get what they want. Why is anyone surprised that a company would do everything they can to exert control over their employees?

True dat! I hate to say it but the Germans do labor better. Workers work with employers to find win win situations. Here is the U.S. people are so polarized, they can’t see the forest for the trees. Disclaimer: I love the U.S. and wouldn’t live anywhere else. Never been to Germany, but I think based on my limited experience that the beer is better here.

 

[ancientmariner52]

True dat! I hate to say it but the Germans do labor better. Workers work with employers to find win win situations. Here is the U.S. people are so polarized, they can’t see the forest for the trees. Disclaimer: I love the U.S. and wouldn’t live anywhere else. Never been to Germany, but I think based on my limited experience that the beer is better here.

It's the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. Follow the rules, you get a bit of the gold.

I've been fortunate, I guess. Never had a truly horrible employer. Even when I left a job, I left on good terms.

Employers can only get the work done by means of employees. Treat them badly, and you will eventually pay a heavy price. Study the history of American railroads if you need an example.

Even in the Navy, we knew to keep our ears open. The biggest idiot in the crew will have a good idea now and then. If you aren't listening, it's gone, maybe forever.

I think I'm kinda off topic. I'll shut up now.

 

[Andrew Hodgson]

A surprising amount of people think just because you signed something you're irrevocably bound by it.

I don't think it makes it set it stone, I just think when you sign an agreement all moral BS aside you shouldn't be surprised if the other party would like it to be enforced...I know I know, super controversial.

 

[enkamania]

Toppling Goliath's attorney, Guy Cook, says they were "able to amicably resolve our differences so that the lawsuit could be dismissed."

Cook says the terms of the agreement are confidential.