Twohig, who did not return phone calls to his home in South Carolina, asked Starbucks in August if he could be released from the agreement to work for Dunkin donuts, according to the complaint. Dunkin, based in Canton, Mass`, has a strong presence in the eastern United States. Starbucks rejected Twohig`s request. At Starbucks, he “participated in business strategies and was responsible for developing Starbucks` operations and responding to competitors such as Dunkin` Donuts,” the complaint states. First of all, it is standard that if you want an opposable non-contest, you need to include the participants and maybe even list the geography. We do not know those details, but other things seem to come into play. First, if Twohig chooses to sign a severance document that again refers to non-competition prohibitions, it is a form of recognition that could be strongly consulted by a judge. Add that to the fact that Dunkin`s thinking enough of his position as the main rival to call Starbucks to inquire about Twohig`s legal ability to work for them, and Starbucks seems to be in decent form on this one title in the courtroom. Twohig worked for Starbucks from 1996 to 2002, then left the company and became Chief Operating Officer of Panera Bread. In 2004, when he returned to the coffee company, he signed the competition agreement, according to the complaint. All of these employees had to sign a competition agreement that prohibited them from working in a café within 10 miles of a mercurys Coffee site for 18 months after the company`s exit. According to the GA`s calculation, the agreement would require, for example, employees at the Mercurys Redmond site to drive about 40 minutes before they can find another café to work in. Non-competitions are therefore something we do, but chaotic to force on the back-end.
Want to see what a real non-competition problem looks like? Look no further than the next non-compete clause between Starbucks and Dunkin` Donuts, as the Boston Herald reports. I love the smell of the non-decaffeinated competitions of the morning: we are talking here in the capitalist of non-competitions. They generate employee emotions and are usually written so widely that they are difficult to impose. Most of the time, the talents will sign a non-competition in one of the three states of mind: they are A) in need of a job and will sign what you need to sign it, B) confident that you have written the agreement so widely that it will be difficult to impose a combination of the two states of mind above. According to reports, the agreement not to compete with Starbucks 18 months after his departure was part of his contract when he returned to Starbucks. According to a copy of the non-compete agreement contained in the Court`s documents, the agreement also required former workers to be required to provide a copy of the agreement to potential new employers for a period of 24 months after their time at Mercurys. In general, we want to encourage people to work where they want, so that non-competition bans are only placed under judicial review when they have a narrow scope. That`s interesting. Starbucks had non-compete bans many years ago. They had to stop enforcing them when the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that non-competition bans are not applicable unless a prepayment is paid to the employee at the time of hiring. I could not find the concrete case, but I know one of the people involved, tangentially.
And it appears that the state changed the law this year – www.natlawreview.com/article/non-competes-washington-over-reaching-could-cost-employers According to a copy of the Coffee Non-Compete mercurys agreement in court records, employees working in another café within a 16-mile radius of each Mercurys coffee site were limited.