CYNTHIA H. KOVACS-WHALEY, DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF WELLNESS SOLUTIONS, INC. v. WELLNESS SOLUTIONS, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 19, 2012)
Plaintiff, an employee, shareholder, and director of Wellness Solutions Inc., filed this action against the Company and shareholders Steven Scesa and Laura Reaves following the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Wellness Solutions, Inc., asserting a shareholder derivative action and claims for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of good faith.
Following her termination and the initiation of this action, the Company exercised a call option contained within the Shareholders’ Agreement and purchased Plaintiff’s stock. Plaintiff then amended her complaint to include claims for breach of contract and false light invasion of privacy against Mr. Scesa.
The trial court summarily dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims. We reverse the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract finding there are genuine issues of material fact. We also reverse the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for false light invasion of privacy finding that Mr. Scesa, as the moving party, failed to negate the essential element of damages or demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot prove the essential element of damages at trial.
We affirm the summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of good faith, and breach of the duty of loyalty upon the finding the Defendants demonstrated that the business judgment rule applies to their decisions at issue, which negates an essential element of each of these claims. Further, we deny Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-56-401(c) upon the finding that Plaintiff did not properly bring a shareholder’s derivative action.
Opinion available here:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/kovacs-whaleyc_031912.pdf
Showing posts with label employment agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment agreement. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, August 15, 2011
Court reviews whether employer had just cause to terminate employee in violation of an employment contract
VICKI L. HUTCHINGS, v. JOBE, HASTINGS & ASSOCIATES (Tenn. Ct. App. August 15, 2011)
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of employment for a term of three years, wherein plaintiff would prepare tax returns for defendant tax firm. Defendant terminated plaintiff's employment before the three year term had expired and plaintiff appealed to this Court to reverse the Trial Court's finding of breach of contract and award her damages for the breach. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding that the employer had just cause to terminate plaintiff. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hutchingsv_081511.pdf
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of employment for a term of three years, wherein plaintiff would prepare tax returns for defendant tax firm. Defendant terminated plaintiff's employment before the three year term had expired and plaintiff appealed to this Court to reverse the Trial Court's finding of breach of contract and award her damages for the breach. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding that the employer had just cause to terminate plaintiff. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hutchingsv_081511.pdf
Monday, July 25, 2011
Court Reviews Whether an Employee Relinquished a Promised Ownership Interest When He Signed a Subsequent Employment Contract
STEPHEN BROWN v. COLUMBIA PRECAST, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2011)
An employee was promised 10% ownership interest in the company he worked for if he stayed with the company for six years. When the time came to transfer the employee's 10% interest to him, however, the parties learned that the tax laws then in effect made the transfer impractical at that time. The parties therefore decided to delay the transfer.
The parties entered into a contract the following year which the employer interpreted to mean that the employee was giving up his 10% ownership interest in exchange for a raise in his salary plus 10% of the company's net profits each year. The employee claimed he did not give up his 10% ownership interest and sued the company and former majority owner for his 10% interest when the company was sold a few years later.
The trial court concluded the employee did not give up his 10% ownership interest by signing the later agreement and awarded the employee 10% of the company's net profits for the years following the employee's termination plus 10% of the ultimate purchase price. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/brownss_072211.pdf
An employee was promised 10% ownership interest in the company he worked for if he stayed with the company for six years. When the time came to transfer the employee's 10% interest to him, however, the parties learned that the tax laws then in effect made the transfer impractical at that time. The parties therefore decided to delay the transfer.
The parties entered into a contract the following year which the employer interpreted to mean that the employee was giving up his 10% ownership interest in exchange for a raise in his salary plus 10% of the company's net profits each year. The employee claimed he did not give up his 10% ownership interest and sued the company and former majority owner for his 10% interest when the company was sold a few years later.
The trial court concluded the employee did not give up his 10% ownership interest by signing the later agreement and awarded the employee 10% of the company's net profits for the years following the employee's termination plus 10% of the ultimate purchase price. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/brownss_072211.pdf
Monday, February 28, 2011
Court Reviews Whether Employee’s Termination was For Cause and Whether Employee was Entitled to Severance Pay
DEAN G. HAFEMAN v. PROTEIN DISCOVERY, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION (Tenn. Ct. App. February 28, 2011)
This is a breach of employment contract action filed by Dean G. Hafemen ("the Employee") against Protein Discovery, Inc., a Tennessee corporation ("the Employer" or "the Company") after the Employer terminated the Employee's employment before the expiration of the term of his "Amended and Restated Employment Agreement" ("the Agreement").
The complaint alleges that the Employee is entitled to certain severance benefits provided for in the Agreement for any termination that does not qualify as a "Termination For Cause" as defined in the Agreement. After a bench trial, the court found that the termination was for cause and entered judgment in favor of the Employer. The Employee appeals. We reverse.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hafemand_022811.pdf
This is a breach of employment contract action filed by Dean G. Hafemen ("the Employee") against Protein Discovery, Inc., a Tennessee corporation ("the Employer" or "the Company") after the Employer terminated the Employee's employment before the expiration of the term of his "Amended and Restated Employment Agreement" ("the Agreement").
The complaint alleges that the Employee is entitled to certain severance benefits provided for in the Agreement for any termination that does not qualify as a "Termination For Cause" as defined in the Agreement. After a bench trial, the court found that the termination was for cause and entered judgment in favor of the Employer. The Employee appeals. We reverse.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hafemand_022811.pdf
Monday, December 28, 2009
Court reviews enforceability of non-compete provision of employment agreement
DAREL L. JONES, ET AL. v. UNITED PROPANE GAS, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2009)
Darel L. Jones, Donald A. Maples, Jr., and Heritage Operating, L.P., dba Hydratane of Athens (collectively "the Plaintiffs") commenced this litigation originally against United Propane Gas, Inc. ("UPG"), with a petition seeking a declaration that the Pricing, Confidentiality and Post- Employment Activities Agreement (referred to as "the Agreement," "the Jones Agreement," or "the Maples Agreement" as the context requires) signed by Jones and Maples in favor of their past employer, Ocoee River Propane Gas, Inc. ("ORP"), was unenforceable and that their new employer, Hydratane, had no liability for hiring them. The Plaintiffs later amended their petition to add ORP as a defendant. UPG and ORP (collectively "the Gas Companies") filed an answer asserting, among other things, (1) that they were independent entities and (2) that Jones and Maples were not UPG employees. ORP filed a counterclaim against Maples asking that he be held in breach of contract and enjoined from violating the Agreement as well as a counterclaim against Hydratane for tortuous interference with the Agreement.
After a bench trial, the court announced its findings in favor of the Plaintiffs from the bench and later signed and entered an order submitted by the Gas Companies that limited the effect of the court's ruling to "the non-compete provision" of the Agreement. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend which the trial court granted, the effect of which was to hold that the Agreement in its entirety, rather than just the non-compete provision, was unenforceable. The Gas Companies appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/jonesd_122809.pdf
Darel L. Jones, Donald A. Maples, Jr., and Heritage Operating, L.P., dba Hydratane of Athens (collectively "the Plaintiffs") commenced this litigation originally against United Propane Gas, Inc. ("UPG"), with a petition seeking a declaration that the Pricing, Confidentiality and Post- Employment Activities Agreement (referred to as "the Agreement," "the Jones Agreement," or "the Maples Agreement" as the context requires) signed by Jones and Maples in favor of their past employer, Ocoee River Propane Gas, Inc. ("ORP"), was unenforceable and that their new employer, Hydratane, had no liability for hiring them. The Plaintiffs later amended their petition to add ORP as a defendant. UPG and ORP (collectively "the Gas Companies") filed an answer asserting, among other things, (1) that they were independent entities and (2) that Jones and Maples were not UPG employees. ORP filed a counterclaim against Maples asking that he be held in breach of contract and enjoined from violating the Agreement as well as a counterclaim against Hydratane for tortuous interference with the Agreement.
After a bench trial, the court announced its findings in favor of the Plaintiffs from the bench and later signed and entered an order submitted by the Gas Companies that limited the effect of the court's ruling to "the non-compete provision" of the Agreement. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend which the trial court granted, the effect of which was to hold that the Agreement in its entirety, rather than just the non-compete provision, was unenforceable. The Gas Companies appeal. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/jonesd_122809.pdf
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Court reviews whether a non-compete contract is enforceable for an at-will employee who allegedy signed it under duress
CUMMINGS INCORPORATED v. TERRY J. DORGAN, JR. (Tenn. Ct. App. September 24, 2009)
This appeal involves an employment agreement and a non-compete covenant. The defendant sales representative was employed as a salesperson by the employer sign company. The parties executed an agreement setting out the structure of the employee's compensation, to be effective for three years. Prior to the expiration of the agreement, the plaintiff employer asked the employee to sign a new contract, changing his pay from straight commissions to salary plus commissions, as well as a separate two-year non-compete contract. The employee initially declined to sign the new contracts, but ultimately did so because he was told that he would be terminated if he refused. Over a year later, the employee quit to work for one of the plaintiff's competitors, and began soliciting his previous employer's largest account. The employer filed this lawsuit to enforce the non-compete contract. The employee asserted that the non-compete contract was unenforceable and filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract.
After a bench trial, the trial court enforced the non-compete contract, but held that the new compensation contract, executed on threat of termination, was void because it was signed under duress. The trial court awarded the employee damages. The employer now appeals, arguing that the new compensation contract was not signed under duress. The employee argues on appeal that the non-compete contract is unenforceable, because it was not supported by consideration and was also signed under duress.
We find that the defendant employee was an employee-at-will of the plaintiff company. On this basis, we reverse the trial court's finding that the new compensation contract was signed under duress, because threatening an at-will employee with termination does not constitute duress under the circumstances. We affirm the trial court's holding that the non-compete contract was enforceable.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/dorgant_092409.pdf
This appeal involves an employment agreement and a non-compete covenant. The defendant sales representative was employed as a salesperson by the employer sign company. The parties executed an agreement setting out the structure of the employee's compensation, to be effective for three years. Prior to the expiration of the agreement, the plaintiff employer asked the employee to sign a new contract, changing his pay from straight commissions to salary plus commissions, as well as a separate two-year non-compete contract. The employee initially declined to sign the new contracts, but ultimately did so because he was told that he would be terminated if he refused. Over a year later, the employee quit to work for one of the plaintiff's competitors, and began soliciting his previous employer's largest account. The employer filed this lawsuit to enforce the non-compete contract. The employee asserted that the non-compete contract was unenforceable and filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract.
After a bench trial, the trial court enforced the non-compete contract, but held that the new compensation contract, executed on threat of termination, was void because it was signed under duress. The trial court awarded the employee damages. The employer now appeals, arguing that the new compensation contract was not signed under duress. The employee argues on appeal that the non-compete contract is unenforceable, because it was not supported by consideration and was also signed under duress.
We find that the defendant employee was an employee-at-will of the plaintiff company. On this basis, we reverse the trial court's finding that the new compensation contract was signed under duress, because threatening an at-will employee with termination does not constitute duress under the circumstances. We affirm the trial court's holding that the non-compete contract was enforceable.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/dorgant_092409.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)