Xpo Logistics Non Compete Agreement
TME`s hiring of former Express 1 employees continued in March 2013, when Sarah Fitzpatrick and Jamie Demitruk began working on the TME operating team. They had both worked from Express 1 headquarters in Michigan. Fitzpatrick had been working there since September 2010 and was in charge of the national accounts at the time of his resignation. It was subject to an industrial agreement with rules of competition, non-invitation and confidentiality. Demitruk was at the time of his resignation Carrier Relations Manager of Express-1, having worked there since September 2006. The applicants did not present an agreement with restrictions on the employment in which Demitruk participated. At the time of Express-1`s resignation, Fitzpatrick and Demitruk gave two weeks` notice, but refused to continue working on it on the advice of TME`s lawyer. They started working for TME the next business day. Law360 reviewed the injunction in a recent article. « XPO Wins Preliminary Inliminary Injunction Incompete » you`ll find here. 39. In addition to the non-competition agreement, the applicant made it clear that the chances of success by finding that Northrop also violated the agreement by taking XPO`s confidential information were highlighted. Your agreement with XPO contains a confidentiality provision requiring Northrop to use XPO`s confidential information solely for XPO`s interest and not to use or copy XPO`s confidential information at any time, directly or indirectly, or to assist any other person or institution in doing so.
(Compl. 15 [Dock. #1-1].) In addition, the agreement stipulates that in the event of termination of an employment contract, Northrop must immediately refer to XPO all confidential information and ownership of XPO, including all information stored electronically, until the last day of its activity. (Id. 16.) The applicants also argue that this case is similar to that of CDW, LLC v. Netech Corp., 722 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (S.D. Ind. 2010), where the court brought an action against the defendant on the basis of claims of unfair competition and breach of trade secrets, among others, although the complainant had parallel proceedings against some of his former employees in another jurisdiction.
The court in reference expressly established in the order of reference that nothing in its order of reference would affect or interfere with the rights of the parties in the parallel proceedings. Id. to 1067. Although the applicants claim that this case is like CDW, because their appeal will not prejudice other proceedings involving former Express-1 employees and no discharge is sought against these individuals, the requested facilitation is here ignored as TME is sought by the applicants` clients by a former Employee of Express 1. Such a provision could affect former employees who are absent from Express 1 and hinder their ability to protect their interests. See Cognis Corp. v. CHEMCENTRAL Corp., 430 F. Supp. 809-10 (N.D.
III. 2006) (where the applicant attempted to: It was necessary to instruct the defendant to distribute third-party products and charge persons who act with the defendant, because « the facilitation sought could hinder [the ability of third parties] to market its competing product and protect its interests » and a third party has already been involved in a dispute with the applicant in another legal proceeding and could therefore be the subject of a multiple or inconsistent decision if he has not been tried in a dispute with the applicant in another court proceeding.