违反竞业禁止协议可能造成哪些损害？
现在我们来讨论最坏的情况：如果前雇主赢得违反竞业禁止协议的诉讼，会发生什么情况。
禁令救济
违反竞业禁止协议最常见的救济类型（也是最常被批准的救济类型）是禁令。这意味着，在许多情况下，前雇主无法或不会试图证明存在损害。相反，他们要求法院维持竞业禁止协议并让员工离开新雇主。
看：
西北足病治疗中心有限公司诉 Ochwat
米勒德维护服务公司诉伯纳罗
Capsonic Group 诉 Swick
Dam, Snell & Taveirne, Ltd. 诉 Verchota
阿贝尔诉福克斯
Petter Packaging, LLC 诉 Hutchcraft
金钱赔偿
然而，前雇主也会寻求赔偿（通常是针对前雇员，但并非总是如此）。一种常见的形式是补偿性赔偿，即因违约而损失的利润赔偿。当然，这需要证明确实存在损失。赔偿金额可能从最低金额到巨额不等，具体取决于雇主在法庭上能证明的损失金额。
看：
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. 诉 Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc.
另一种常见的赔偿类型是针对恶意行为的惩罚性赔偿。这要求有强有力的证据表明存在恶意行为。从理论上讲，需要有恶意行为来证明任何一项索赔，因此如果索赔得到满足，惩罚性赔偿就可以考虑。
第三种选择是违约金。违约金在合同中规定为一方因违反合同而需支付的金额或计算公式。在这种情况下，雇主可能会在合同中规定员工违反与雇主的竞业禁止协议时必须支付的金额。由于违约金是合同的一部分，除非新雇主直接与前雇主签订了合同，否则新雇主无需支付违约金。法院在要求一方支付违约金之前，必须决定违约金条款是否合理。这个金额也可能有所不同。
看：
雷蒙多诉哈蒙德诊所协会
BDO Seidman 诉 Hirshberg
最后，败诉方可能要承担诉讼费和律师费。这取决于胜诉方是否要求赔偿，以及法院是否认为败诉方的行为值得他们支付这些费用（例如，如果他们提起诉讼或提出了一些轻率的论点）。
看：
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. 诉 Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc.
法庭判决结果
一般而言，很难证明竞业禁止协议是可以执行的。大多数案件的结论是竞业禁止协议不可执行。一般来说，范围过广的竞业禁止协议将无法执行，而范围较窄且得到支持的竞业禁止协议只会阻止员工招揽或与前雇主的客户合作。几乎所有成功的案例都包括直接竞争客户和代表员工或新雇主的恶意行为。
看：
Lawrence & Allen, Inc. 诉 Cambridge Human Res. Group, Inc （无合法商业目的、不合理限制）
Northwest Podiatry Ctr., Ltd. 诉 Ochwat（模糊且过于宽泛的契约）
Capsonic Group 诉 Swick（无合法商业目的）
Brown & Brown, Inc. 诉 Mudron（缺乏充分考虑）
Diederich Ins. Agency, LLC 诉 Smith（缺乏充分考虑）
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. 诉 Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc.（限制不合理，因为范围过广）
当前雇主胜诉时，赔偿金额为 7,313.72 美元（Hagerty, Lockenvitz, Ginzkey & Associates 诉 Ginzkey）； 针对使用前雇主的商业机密和客户名单创办自己公司的前雇员，赔偿金额为 49,322.50 美元（Cherne Indus., Inc. 诉 Grounds & Associates）；根据专业服务公司的违约金条款，赔偿金额为 138,000 美元（BDO Seidman 诉 Hirshberg）；以及根据诊所的违约金条款，赔偿金额为 15,000-25,000 美元（Raymundo 诉 Hammond Clinic Ass'n）。根据前雇主能够证明的损失，赔偿金额可能高得多或低得多。
For a quick review, in our previous posts in the series we discussed
When a non-compete agreement is enforceable, which we explained is more likely the narrower the agreement
Whether the new employer can be liable for an employee breaching the non-compete agreement with a former employer, which they can, although it is very rare; and
What new employers can do to reduce the risk of lawsuits and liability.
Now we will talk about the worst-case scenario: what happens if the former employer wins the lawsuit for breach of the non-compete agreement.
Injunctive Relief
The most commonly sought (and most commonly granted) type of relief for breach of a non-compete agreement is an injunction. This means that in many cases, the former employer cannot or does not try to prove that there are damages. Instead, they ask the court to uphold the non-compete agreement and make the employee leave the new employer.
See:
Northwest Podiatry Ctr., Ltd. v. Ochwat
Millard Maintenance Service Co. v. Bernero
Capsonic Group v. Swick
Dam, Snell & Taveirne, Ltd. v. Verchota
Abel v. Fox
Petter Packaging, LLC v. Hutchcraft
Monetary Damages
However, former employers do also seek damages (most often, but not always, against the former employee). One popular form is compensatory damages, or compensation for profits lost due to the breach. This, of course, requires showing that there was an actual loss. This can range from minimal sums to incredibly large amounts, depending on what the employer can prove the damages were in court.
See:
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc.
Another popular type of damages is punitive damages for malicious conduct. This requires that there was strong evidence showing malicious conduct. Theoretically, malicious conduct is required to prove either claim, so if the claim is satisfied, punitive damages are on the table.
A third alternative is liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are provided in a contract as an amount, or formula for calculating an amount, that a party will pay for breaching the contract. In this context, employers may include an amount that the employee must pay if they breach the non-compete agreement with their employer. Because liquidated damages are part of the contract, the new employer will not have to pay liquidated damages unless they signed a contract directly with the former employer. Courts must decide whether a liquidated damages clause is reasonable before requiring a party to pay it. This amount can vary as well.
See:
Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass’n
BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg
Finally, the unsuccessful party may be liable for court costs and attorney fees. This depends on whether the successful party asked for these damages, and whether the court feels that the unsuccessful party’s actions warrant them paying for these costs (for example, if they brought the case or made several arguments frivolously).
See:
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc.
Outcomes Seen in Court
In general, it is very difficult to prove that a non-compete is enforceable. A majority of cases conclude that the non-compete was unenforceable. Generally, overly broad non-competes will be unenforceable, while the narrower, upheld non-competes will only prevent the employee from soliciting or working with the former employer’s clients. Almost all of the successful cases included direct competition for clients and malicious action in behalf of the employee or new employer.
See:
Lawrence & Allen, Inc. v. Cambridge Human Res. Group, Inc (no legitimate business objective, unreasonable restrictions)
Northwest Podiatry Ctr., Ltd. v. Ochwat (ambiguous and overly broad covenant)
Capsonic Group v. Swick (no legitimate business objective)
Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Mudron (lack of adequate consideration)
Diederich Ins. Agency, LLC v. Smith (lack of adequate consideration)
Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc. (restraint unreasonable because overbroad)
When the former employer managed to win, the amounts have been $7,313.72 (Hagerty, Lockenvitz, Ginzkey & Associates v. Ginzkey); $49,322.50 against former employees that started up their own company using trade secrets and client lists from former employer (Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Associates); $138,000 pursuant to a liquidated damages clause in a professional services firm (BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg); and $15,000-25,000 pursuant to a liquidated damages clause in a clinic (Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass’n). The amounts can be much higher or lower depending on what loss the former employer can prove.
你可能还会感兴趣的话题：
扫码联系我们