After En Banc Rehearing, Court Again Nixes No-Hire Provision in Trucking Company Dispute
An en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court panel, after rehearing argument in a case of first impression, has once again invalidated a no-hire provision in the case of trucking company employees seeking jobs with a competitor.
January 16, 2019 at 07:40 PM
3 minute read
An en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court panel, after rehearing argument in a case of first impression, has once again invalidated a no-hire provision in the case of trucking company employees seeking jobs with a competitor.
The panel voted 7-2 to affirm a Beaver County Court of Common Pleas decision upholding a nonsolicitation provision in the contract between Pittsburgh Logistics Systems and Beemac Trucking, but denying enforcement of a no-hire provision. Last March, a split three-judge panel ruled the same way.
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, writing for the majority en banc as she did for the three-judge panel, said the court was correct to deny a preliminary injunction regarding the no-hire provision.
“The trial court determined the no-hire provision would violate public policy by preventing persons from seeking employment with certain companies without receiving additional consideration for the prohibition, or even necessarily having any input regarding or knowledge of the restrictive provision,” Ott said. “Additionally, the trial court reasoned the no-hire provision was overly broad in that the enforceable no-solicitation provision between PLS and Beemac sufficiently protected PLS from the loss of its clients, which was the ultimate purpose of all the relevant restrictions. Based upon the nature and limitations of our review, we agree with the trial court.”
Ott was joined in the majority by Judges John Bender, Alice Dubow, Susan Peikes Gantman, Jack Panella, Victor Stabile and Anne Lazarus.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Mary Jane Bowes said, “As I would hold that the no-hire provision at issue is enforceable under Pennsylvania law, I would reverse the trial court's order denying the petition for a preliminary injunction filed by Pittsburgh Logistics Systems Inc. against Beemac Trucking.”
She was joined in her dissent by Judge Mary Murray.
Ott said the trial court found that the no-hire provision violated public policy by disallowing nonsignatories the opportunity to work elsewhere.
“The PLS MCSC ostensibly prevents Beemac from hiring any PLS employee for the term of the agreement, which is self-renewing, and for an additional two years thereafter,” Ott said. “Accordingly, each MCSC contract with a new carrier, results in a new restriction upon current employees from obtaining employment in the same or similar field of work.”
“Employment restrictions are valid, in certain circumstances, in contracts between employer and employee,” Ott continued. ”As a general rule, those restrictions are in place, in an agreement between the employer and employee, at the time of initial employment. When a new restriction is added, to be enforceable, that restriction must be supported by additional consideration.”
Ott added, “If additional restrictions to the agreement between employer and employee are rendered unenforceable by a lack of additional consideration, PLS should not be entitled to circumvent that outcome through an agreement with a third party.”
William Stickman of Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd represents PLS. Paul Steinman of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott represents Beemac. Neither responded to requests for comment.
(Copies of the 24-page opinion in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems v. BeeMac Trucking, PICS No. 18-XXXX, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readChild Welfare Agency, Hotel Agree to $9.4M Settlement With Trafficking Victim
3 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Lyft's 'Competitive Harm' Claims in Attempt to Seal Safety Procedures, Storage Information
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250