Non-Competes Can Cost You More Than A Job

05 June 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Kevin E. Hyde

Normally in this space we write about case developments after the case is decided.  This time, though the story involves a mid-case development which led to a company firing an employee it fought hard to keep.

The high profile case at issue, Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-00939).  The matter  involves Anthony Levandowski, a former employee of Google (d/b/a Waymo) who was later hired by Uber.  Mr. Levandowski had formerly worked for Google in its efforts to develop a driverless car.  Mr. Levandowski left Google to start his own self-driving technology company, Otto, which was acquired last August by Uber for $680M.  Waymo then sued Uber for trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement and unfair competition.

As you might expect, the case is being heavily litigated. In an order dated May 11, 2017, the court found that Waymo “has shown compelling evidence that its former engineer, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 confidential files from Waymo immediately before leaving employment there.”  The court went on to say that Uber likely knew, or should have known, that Mr.  Levandowski had taken and retained possession of Waymo’s confidential files.  Finally, the court ordered that Uber take all steps necessary to ensure Levandowski was screened from using any of the downloaded files, that he be removed from any involvement in the particular project where the trade secrets were implicated, and that the downloaded material be returned to Waymo or the court by noon on May 31, 2017.

There is also an interesting twist involving Mr. Levandowski. At one point he pleaded the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, involving a due-diligence report Waymo had done regarding its acquisition of Otto.  Additionally, the court, on its own initiative, referred the case “to the Unites States Attorney for investigation of possible theft of trade secrets…”

Fast forward to May 26, 2017. Uber sent a letter to Mr. Levandowski that day  notifying him that his employment was being terminated “for cause” for failure to cooperate with Uber’s efforts to comply with the court’s May 11 order, requiring return of material.  Uber also gave Mr. Levandowski until June 15, 2017 to fully cooperate and reserved the right to rescind the termination of employment.

So what does all of this mean for employers? The obvious lesson is that trade secrets – even if not involving such new and novel technology like that involving driverless cars – are valuable and subject to a great deal of protection.  When the stakes are high the court may look at all remedies, including a review of possible criminal activity.  Employers must be cautious in hiring employees subject to a non-compete, and take care in determining  what steps, if any, the employee may have taken to obtain confidential material of the prior employer.

Turning a blind eye is not enough – as the court, in ordering the return of material and disclosures by Uber, based its determination that Uber likely knew, or at least should have known, of the likelihood of material having been taken. Finally, when confronted with an employee’s refusal to cooperate – even a valuable employee like Mr. Levandowski – the employer must be willing to act.  Not all cases will require termination but the employer must, nonetheless, be prepared to ensure compliance with a court order.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT