Can an org sue, and should they

[default]

I have an uncle in Indy that is a professional umpire in fact he did a big ten championship game.

Anyways I heard that there is an org that charges girls around $1500 to play. This org also pays their coaches. The org fired one of their coaches for not bringing enoungh new players into their org. This coach who is a school varsity softball coach contacts a non- profit org to see if they need players and or more coaches as many of the girls quit the same org after the coach was fired. This big org decides to sue the coach and the org that the coach had contacted, why because the coach had signed a no competion clause with in 150 miles... I heard it was some where around $30,000 suit. Org claimed trade secretes and stealing players and data base stuff..

My question would be this,
#1 wouldn't this coach be in a competion aready by being a paid school ball coach. How would being a non-paid coach be competion verse a paid coach..
#2 how can the non-profit org be held accountable when they have no contract with the big org..
#3 Is this smart of a big profit org to sue, non-profit orgs and coaches.
#4 Where does this big org get the money to pay for lawyers, the girls fees?

Lets here it from the lawyers out there.

 

[default]

I have an uncle in Indy that is a professional umpire in fact he did a big ten championship game.

Anyways I heard that there is an org that charges girls around $1500 to play. This org also pays their coaches. The org fired one of their coaches for not bringing enoungh new players into their org. This coach who is a school varsity softball coach contacts a non- profit org to see if they need players and or more coaches as many of the girls quit the same org after the coach was fired. This big org decides to sue the coach and the org that the coach had contacted, why because the coach had signed a no competion clause with in 150 miles... I heard it was some where around $30,000 suit. Org claimed trade secretes and stealing players and data base stuff..

My question would be this,
#1 wouldn't this coach be in a competion aready by being a paid school ball coach. How would being a non-paid coach be competion verse a paid coach..
#2 how can the non-profit org be held accountable when they have no contract with the big org..
#3 Is this smart of a big profit org to sue, non-profit orgs and coaches.
#4 Where does this big org get the money to pay for lawers, the girls fees?

Lets here it from the lawers out there.

IMHO-
As to #1- non-compete agreements are governed by State law- which State is the Coach in? Assuming that the Organization at issue was already aware when they entered into the non-compete that the Coach was also a school ball Coach, then there may be a clause in the non-compete that would "excuse" or recognize this coaching as not violative of the non-compete. As to the non-paid coach issue, it all depends on the terms of the non-compete i.e. some prevent any sort of work, intership, paid or unpaid- AGAIN- whether or not the exact terms of the non-compete are enforceable is governed by State law.

As to #2- the non-profit did not enter into the non-compete - the Coach at issue would be liable for breach of that contract (assuming a lot here), not the non-profit. However, there are OTHER forms of liablility that the non-profit could have (again depending upon the state and the facts at hand)- For example, the State of Ohio recognizes tortious interference with business relationships and this could be a possible claim brought against the non-profit (more facts are needed)

As to #3- These cases are very expensive to bring to trial because of the amount of discovery involved- IMHO- if the claim is only $30k, its not worth the legal expense to bring the claim....

As to #4- NOT A CLUE

 

[default]

Where's CGS when we need her!

 

[default]

Fan and fun has it down pretty well. Non-compete clauses are typically not favored in courts, unless there is some specialized training or knowledge that is not easy to obtain. Fanandfun also knows that 30k isn't enough to get in a big uproar about - any lawyer would have higher legal fees than that before the case settled.

 

[default]

From experience in Ohio Non Competes rarely hold water. And I would say the economics of the last few years would even strengthen that notion

 

[default]

Fan and fun has it down pretty well. Non-compete clauses are typically not favored in courts, unless there is some specialized training or knowledge that is not easy to obtain. Fanandfun also knows that 30k isn't enough to get in a big uproar about - any lawyer would have higher legal fees than that before the case settled.

I practiced in employment law several years ago...still an attorney just have Federal Benefits now

 

[default]

Sounds like a case for the cronies at the OHSAA...lol

 

[default]

Buckeye Heat and fanandfun both have it nailed well. The only thing I would add is that I would have a hard time believing a court look favorably upon such a non-compete. Because there are minors involved, I think the courts would disfavor any contract that limits their options. I think the courts would carve out an exception for them, as they are innocent bystanders in this fight.

I didn't practice employment law, but it seems to me the fact that the coach was fired by the big organization would also factor into a court not enforcing the non-compete.

Assuming the big organization could win the suit, what are its damages? If it is a non-profit, then you can't hardly argue lost profits.

 

[default]

Because there are minors involved, I think the courts would disfavor any contract that limits their options. I think the courts would carve out an exception for them, as they are innocent bystanders in this fight.

If it is a non-profit, then you can't hardly argue lost profits.

Agree!!! Only thing I can think of IF the BIG ORG. is a non-profit (and not an LLC) is the possible loss of "good will" (i.e. reputation), but it is really hard to put a dollar figure on something like that- in other words- high cost to litigating over damages...

 

[default]

What if the big org is an LLC.
(which it is) does that make a difference.

 

[default]

Was the coach an employee or a 1099 contractor? Also, is the language in question a non-compete (you cant work for some one else in the field)
or a non solicit (leave our players alone)?

 

[default]

If the Big Org. is an LLC, then technically (1) assuming the Big Org. proves breach of the non-compete (2) the Court finds that the non-compete is enforceable- which is probably a long shot and (3) the Big Org. PROVES that the damages (meaning the lost profits) "flow" or are a direct result of the breach of the non-compete, then the Big Org. might be entitled to damages.

I caution that there are A TON of issues here.

The biggest one I see is that athletes (who are not in the minorleague or pros- we are talking kids right?) that change organizations because Coach X leaves and goes somewhere else, isn't apples to apples with a lawyer that 'steals' clients and brings them to the new firm, or an advertising company who's associate leaves and goes and works for a competitor and takes his "contact list" with him -i.e. these non-competes would have a better chance at holding water than the Coach at issue.

I cannot stress that the biggest issue is the cost to litigate something like this- it would be more than the $30k at issue. Sometimes people find attorneys that are willing to write "threatening demand letters" (that might even include a "draft complaint" ) with the intent of hoping that the other side would just settle for some monetary amount but I just can't image that any attorney would advise his client that it would be worth litigating something so small....JMHO

 

[default]

but the coach did not leave the big org, the coach was fired. Coach did not start a team with all the big orgs players, but went to a org that already had a team, just may of needed a few players..

So how could the org prove damages.. If a person is fired how long could a person be expected to have to honor a no compete clause 1 yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, or life time...

 

[default]

The length of time to honor the no-compete is specified in the contract, but courts will only uphold a "reasonable" length of time. What is reasonable? Depends on the facts of each situation.

If a court somehow upheld a non-compete in this instance, I can't imagine any more than one year would be reasonable. I forget the general rule of length of time, but almost anything over a certain number of years (maybe three or five or something like that) is likely to be unreasonable.

 

[default]

but the coach did not leave the big org, the coach was fired. Coach did not start a team with all the big orgs players, but went to a org that already had a team, just may of needed a few players..

So how could the org prove damages.. If a person is fired how long could a person be expected to have to honor a no compete clause 1 yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, or life time...

Some non-compete's include situations where a person is fired (the standard usually is gross negligence) however these are harder to enforce because the reason's why the individual were fired are often reviewed by the Court -or I should say litigated in Court- to ensure that the Company terminated the employee (here a Coach) in "good faith and fair dealing." (which is a whole other issue).
You are right- it would be very difficult to prove damages in the situation above! Last I knew that reasonable time period for non-compete's is "3 yrs." but again- that is where the non-compete terms are enforceable....

 

[default]

I know that people sign non-competes but usually for alot of money, it is odd any coach would sign such a thing when the money they were getting paid was next to nothing..

 

[default]

This whole thing smells like a "sit down" and negotiation, once the bullets and anger yield to calm thinking. Seems unlikely that the value proposaition here for either side is worth the costs in time and money, in reality. Filing suit "feels" good until the path and costs are mapped out, typically.

 

[default]

Sounds to me like Organization "X" is one to stay away from. I have never heard of a girls' softball organization requiring no-compete clauses in this area. Maybe they should worry about putting together a quality product before demanding so much cash from players, and commitments from coaches. The term "snake oil salesman" comes to mind...

 

[default]

If org. x is who I heard it was they were not getting good reviews during tryouts.

 

[default]

This whole thing smells like a "sit down" and negotiation, once the bullets and anger yield to calm thinking. Seems unlikely that the value proposaition here for either side is worth the costs in time and money, in reality. Filing suit "feels" good until the path and costs are mapped out, typically.

Yep. The money just can't be there for this to go anywhere in the courts.