Required Consideration Lacking For Replacement Employment Contract

LR-Conference-Table-Men-FolderA September 23rd Connecticut Appellate Court decision tells a cautionary tale for employers drafting employment contracts intended to replace earlier contracts. Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., 2014 WL 4548490 (Conn. App.).

In Thoma, the employee’s first contract gave her the right to a generous severance if the employer terminated her without cause. It also contained a six month post-employment non-compete. Almost immediately after the employee signed the first contract, the employer’s board regretted its award of severance and created a new, replacement agreement with no severance provision. The employee signed the second agreement, which included an explicit statement that it superseded all prior agreements, including the one with the six-month severance. Some eleven months later, the employer terminated her without cause. Based on the replacement agreement, it paid her no severance. The employee sued for severance under the first agreement, and, surprisingly, she won.

The critical issue was whether there was consideration for the second agreement – a new benefit flowing to the employee. If there were none, as the employee contended, the agreement would be invalid. It would not supersede the first agreement. The first agreement would apply, and the employee would have the right to severance.

The employer insisted there was consideration for the second agreement - the elimination of the six month post-employment non-compete, and its replacement with a less burdensome non-compete applicable only during the employee’s employment. It pointed to §1.2 of the agreement which imposed an obligation not-to-compete only “during the period of [her] employment with [the employer].” The employee acknowledged §1.2, but pointed to §1.1, which stated that if she were fired or quit, she “shall continue to comply with the provisions of section 1.2.” She argued that these provisions were inconsistent and incapable of being reconciled by a reasonable construction, and that under these circumstances, the second contract was ambiguous as to the duration of its non-compete. Was it for the period of employment only, as §1.2 stated, or was it for an indefinite time post-employment, as §1.1 indicated? If it was for an indefinite time post-employment, the covenant would be more burdensome, the foregoing of the six-month noncompete would not have produced a benefit for the employee, and there would therefore be no consideration for the second agreement.

The trial court and the Appellate Court ruled for the employee, agreeing with her that the duration of the noncompete in the second agreement was unclear. Therefore, it reasoned that it was also unclear whether the covenant in the second agreement was more or less burdensome than the covenant in the first agreement. Given, this lack of clarity, the courts determined that the second agreement was not supported by consideration.

The lesson for employers: Make sure your employment agreements are clear; avoid conflicting provisions; and always be mindful of the need for consideration – providing a benefit to the employee, something the employee didn’t already have – when creating an employment agreement intended to replace an earlier agreement.

Posted in Appellate

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page