LinkedIn Post Likely Didn't Violate Non-Compete Clause

A LinkedIn profile update alerting a user's contacts about her new job did not necessarily constitute a solicitation of business that ran afoul of her non-compete agreement, a Massachusetts trial judge has ruled.

KNF&T Inc. v. Muller was filed recently in Suffolk, MA, Superior Court against former KNF&T vice president Charlotte Muller and her new employer, Panther Global Group Inc. KNF&T, which does business as KNF&T Staffing Resources, claims Muller violated her one-year non-compete agreement in several ways.

One concerns Muller's LinkedIn update, which notified more than 500 contacts about her new job at Panther, including contacts she established during nearly eight years at KNF&T. “To the extent this notification has been sent to current KNF&T clients, this notification constitutes a solicitation of business in direct violation of her non-competition agreement,” KNF&T alleged.

In late October, Massachusetts Associate Justice Thomas P. Billings denied KNF&T's bid for a preliminary injunction. He wrote that Muller was not prohibited from recruiting information technology workers “or anyone else in a field in which KNF&T does not recruit.”

According to the order, Muller's new job involves information technology recruiting. KNF&T specializes in administrative and office support; clerical; secretarial; legal secretarial and paralegal; bookkeeping; accounting/finance; and human resources.

In a footnote, Billings addressed the LinkedIn issue. He noted that Muller's update about her new job was full of generic terms like “Staffing Services” and “Recruiting.”

“So long as Muller has not and does not, prior to April 12, 2014, solicit or accept business in the Fields of Placement for herself or others (including her new employer), she will not have violated the covenant not to compete,” Billings wrote.

KNF&T also claimed that Muller improperly contacted one of its customers on behalf of Panther and recommended one of its employees for a position at a third company. Additionally, the company pressed contract and unfair-competition claims against Panther for giving Muller the regional vice president job before her non-compete agreement expired.

KNF&T's lawyer, Thomas Tucker of a Duxbury, MA, said he argued during the preliminary injunction hearing that the LinkedIn posting was equivalent to a letter soliciting business.

Tucker was not aware of any cases directly on point concerning LinkedIn profiles. Of the general issue of the enforceability of non-compete agreements, he hoped for guidance from an appellate court, “because lower courts are all over the place.”

Muller and Panther's lawyer, Mark Szal of the Boston-based Szal Law Group, declined to comment because the case is pending.

Sheri Qualters is a reporter for The National Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.

A LinkedIn profile update alerting a user's contacts about her new job did not necessarily constitute a solicitation of business that ran afoul of her non-compete agreement, a Massachusetts trial judge has ruled.

KNF&T Inc. v. Muller was filed recently in Suffolk, MA, Superior Court against former KNF&T vice president Charlotte Muller and her new employer, Panther Global Group Inc. KNF&T, which does business as KNF&T Staffing Resources, claims Muller violated her one-year non-compete agreement in several ways.

One concerns Muller's LinkedIn update, which notified more than 500 contacts about her new job at Panther, including contacts she established during nearly eight years at KNF&T. “To the extent this notification has been sent to current KNF&T clients, this notification constitutes a solicitation of business in direct violation of her non-competition agreement,” KNF&T alleged.

In late October, Massachusetts Associate Justice Thomas P. Billings denied KNF&T's bid for a preliminary injunction. He wrote that Muller was not prohibited from recruiting information technology workers “or anyone else in a field in which KNF&T does not recruit.”

According to the order, Muller's new job involves information technology recruiting. KNF&T specializes in administrative and office support; clerical; secretarial; legal secretarial and paralegal; bookkeeping; accounting/finance; and human resources.

In a footnote, Billings addressed the LinkedIn issue. He noted that Muller's update about her new job was full of generic terms like “Staffing Services” and “Recruiting.”

“So long as Muller has not and does not, prior to April 12, 2014, solicit or accept business in the Fields of Placement for herself or others (including her new employer), she will not have violated the covenant not to compete,” Billings wrote.

KNF&T also claimed that Muller improperly contacted one of its customers on behalf of Panther and recommended one of its employees for a position at a third company. Additionally, the company pressed contract and unfair-competition claims against Panther for giving Muller the regional vice president job before her non-compete agreement expired.

KNF&T's lawyer, Thomas Tucker of a Duxbury, MA, said he argued during the preliminary injunction hearing that the LinkedIn posting was equivalent to a letter soliciting business.

Tucker was not aware of any cases directly on point concerning LinkedIn profiles. Of the general issue of the enforceability of non-compete agreements, he hoped for guidance from an appellate court, “because lower courts are all over the place.”

Muller and Panther's lawyer, Mark Szal of the Boston-based Szal Law Group, declined to comment because the case is pending.

Sheri Qualters is a reporter for The National Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.