Since I practice law in Washington I naturally looked at our state’s case law, but couldn’t find a case on point to answer my question. I expanded my search to other states and found two relevant cases, one in Illinois and the other in Missouri. In 2001, an Illinois’ court found that an employer has no protectible interest in an employee’s customers unless the employer can show the employee would not have had contact with the customers absent his association with the employer. Com-Co Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Service Ins. Agency Inc., 748 N.E.2d 298, *302 (2001). I interpret this to mean that in state of Illinois, that when an employee leaves their employer he or she can bring their clients with him as long as that person brought them to the company at the time they were hired. In addition to this Illinois case, I also found a Missouri case that held the exact opposite. Naegele v. Biomedical Systems Corp., 272 S.W.3d 385, *389 (2008).

So now the question remains, would the Washington court follow Illinois or Missouri? My opinion is that a Washington court would follow Illinois, and here’s why. The backbone of decisions regarding non-competes are that the agreement must be reasonable. In fact, a court in WA will not enforce a non-compete or a provision of the non-compete if it results in an unreasonable outcome. This would be the case if the state followed the Missouri case law. Think about it, in Missouri an employer can hire a salesperson, have them bring their clients to the company, terminate the employee right after the hire date, and prevent the employee from contacting the same clients that he or she brought to the Company. Sounds unreasonable to me, and I think the Washington courts would agree. Therefore, I believe that the Illinois holding discussed above would be adopted by a Washington court.

In the end of it all I guess my niece, i.e. the company, doesn’t get to keep something if it doesn’t belong to them in the first place. Sorry Bailey, but I’ll buy you some M & M’s to make up for it.

Of course, the question was can the employer enforce the terms that were made after the formation of the original agreement?

I think everyone is familiar with the phrase “you can’t get something for nothing” and it definitely rings true in this situation.  Any modifications to a contract must be supported by independent consideration.  I’m sure some of you are saying, “What the hell does that mean?”  Let me explain.  Consideration exists if there is a bargained for exchange.  Meaning the person making the promise, i.e. my friend above, must be getting something in return for his or her promise which he or she does not already have.  If the person making the promise gets nothing in return, then consideration does not exist and the modification is likely invalid.

Now back to the situation above.  Because my friend made additional promises without getting anything in return from the employer, his/her additional promises, i.e. the modification, are not enforceable because they aren’t supported by consideration.

Interesting stuff huh?  Maybe not for everyone, but it probably is for those like me who are fascinated with the daily contracts which we enter into each day of our lives.

As always, your comments are always welcomed.

Ryan Pauley