United States: Texas Supreme Court Rules For Exxon: A New Day For Noncompete-Triggered Forfeitures In Texas?

Last Updated: September 9 2014
Article by Scott McDonald

On August 29, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Drennen1 upheld a noncompete-triggered forfeiture provision in an executive compensation plan that applied New York law. This is a landmark decision in a number of important ways discussed below, but did it signal a new day for noncompete-triggered forfeiture clauses in Texas? Maybe, maybe not. Despite making a number of very important rulings on public policy, choice of law, and what it considers to be a "covenant not to compete," the Texas Supreme Court intentionally left the fundamental issue of enforceability of detrimental-activity provisions (i.e., noncompete-triggered forfeiture clauses) under Texas law undecided.

The heart of the court's ruling turned on the choice of law decision and is summed up nicely at the end of the case:

While Texas law may or may not permit the enforcement of these detrimental-activity provisions, New York law does. Application of New York law, resulting in the enforcement of these provisions, does not contravene any fundamental policy in Texas. Accordingly, without determining the enforceability of the detrimental-activity provisions under Texas law, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and, applying New York law, render a take-nothing judgment for ExxonMobil in accordance with the trial court's judgment.

So, if the court did not decide the noncompete-triggered forfeiture issue based on Texas law, why should this be considered a landmark Texas decision? The answer lies in how the court got to the conclusion it describes above – getting to this result required some major shifts away from historic precedent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff worked for ExxonMobil for over 30 years. He received incentive compensation under a variety of programs, some of which involved shares in the company with delayed delivery provisions (e.g., 50% of the shares delivered three years after a grant, and 50% delivered seven years after a grant). The program agreements contained New York choice of law provisions. The programs contained termination provisions that allowed ExxonMobil to terminate outstanding awards under certain conditions. Engaging in "detrimental activity" was one such condition. "Detrimental Activity" was defined as "acceptance ... of duties to a third party under circumstances that create a material conflict of interest," and "material conflict of interest" included becoming employed "by an entity that regulates, deals with, or competes with the Corporation or an affiliate."

The plaintiff was told his job at the company was likely to change and in response, he chose to resign and go to work for a competitor. The plaintiff had 57,200 shares still in the restricted period when he resigned. ExxonMobil cancelled the outstanding shares due to his undertaking a "detrimental activity."

Litigation ensued and the case made its way to trial. At trial, there were a number of issues submitted to the jury about whether the nature of the restrictions in the program had been changed orally, creating a new contract, or waived through alleged statements made to the plaintiff. The jury decided against the plaintiff and for the company on these various breach of contract, oral modification, and waiver/estoppel theories. The plaintiff then moved for judgment by the court on the theory that the "detrimental activity" provisions ExxonMobil relied upon were, as a matter of law, a form of unenforceable noncompete agreement under Texas law. The trial court disagreed and found he was not entitled to the shares. On appeal, however, the intermediate appellate court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that Texas law applied, and that under Texas law, the provision was unenforceable. This decision was then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Choice of Law

The court first looked at the choice of law issue. The court concluded that New York law applied, but how it got there involved a number of game-changing decisions under Texas law.

The court applied the same Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 test it had previously applied in DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp, 793 S.W.2d 670, 677 (Tex. 1990) where it had concluded that a Florida choice of law provision in a noncompete contract would not be honored. In short, the Restatement test looks at: (a) whether there is no substantial relationship between the transaction and the state chosen, and (b) if application of the law chosen would violate a fundamental public policy of a state with a materially greater interest than the one chosen.

The first element of this test is the need for a relationship between the contract and the state chosen. Here, ExxonMobil's incentive programs provided for application of New York law but ExxonMobil is headquartered in Texas and incorporated in New Jersey. The plaintiff lived in Texas. Although he had, at one earlier point in his career (in the '80s) lived and worked for Exxon in New York, he was not doing so at the time of the awards at issue. To find a relationship to New York, the court focused on several seemingly attenuated considerations. It pointed out that the company's outside counsel was a New York law firm. It noted that the company's shares were traded on the New York stock exchange and valued on that exchange. The court never really expressly said these connections qualify as "substantial," but stated that the Restatement requires only that the choice to be sufficiently close to the parties' contract to be reasonable. It concluded these connections to New York were sufficient. This is a significantly different focus from the one seen in DeSantis, and is the first of the court's landmark moves.

The court then addressed the second part of the test and concluded that the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction is Texas, and that Texas has a materially greater interest in the transaction than New York. These conclusions were consistent with the analysis seen earlier in DeSantis. However, in applying the "fundamental public policy" part of the analysis, the court applied a big, new twist. The court concluded that the contract at issue was not a covenant not to compete, and thus not on a collision course with fundamental Texas public policy – at least not in the same way that the DeSantis noncompete contract was. In the course of addressing the public policy issue, the court said a number of things that will likely be important precedent for the future:

  • The court defined what a noncompete is, adopting a statement from Marsh USA Inc v. Cook: "[c]ovenants that place limits on former employees' professional mobility or restrict their solicitation of former employers' customers and employees ..." 354 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. 2011). It then concluded that the forfeiture clause did not fit this definition.
  • The court recognized a distinction "between an employer's desire to protect an investment and an employer's desire to reward loyalty." The court emphasized that forfeiture provisions conditioned on loyalty reward loyalty rather than prohibit future employment opportunities, making them different from covenants not to compete.
  • The court suggested that a forfeiture provision might still be unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade under Texas law, even if it is not a covenant not to compete, citing Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. Haass, 818 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. 1991). But, it did not have to decide that issue because it applied New York law (saying it is a "separate question and one which we reserve for another day.").
  • The court signaled that it is stepping away from DeSantis on the public policy issue, stating "the policy concerns regarding uniformity of law raised in DeSantis have changed in the past twenty-four years." It noted that Texas now hosts many of the world's largest corporations, and "our public policy has shifted from a patriarchal one in which we valued uniform treatment of Texas employees from one employer to the next above all else, to one in which we also value the ability of a company to maintain uniformity in its employment contracts across all employees, whether the individual employees reside in Texas or New York."

The court ultimately concluded that when the importance of allowing parties to use contracts to gain uniformity is factored in "we cannot conclude that applying New York law [to a forfeiture provision] is 'contrary to a fundamental policy' of Texas."

Once the court had decided that the forfeiture clause would be governed by New York law, it made short work of the enforceability issue. The "employee choice" doctrine of New York provides that "a restrictive covenant will be enforceable without regard to reasonableness" so long as the employee voluntarily left his or her employment or was terminated for cause. Morris v. Schroder Capital Management Int'l, 859 N.E.2d 503, 507 (N.Y. 2006). Consequently, the plaintiff's reasonableness challenges to factors such as lack of geography in the "detrimental activity" restriction were irrelevant. New York precedent enforces agreements where the employee had a "choice of preserving his rights under the [incentive programs] by refraining from competition ... or risking forfeiture of such rights by exercising his right to compete... ." Lenel Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Smith, 966 N.Y.S.2d 618, 621 (N.Y. App Div. 2013). The plaintiff was making exactly this kind of choice.

Action Items and Takeaways

  • Multi-state employers that have been reluctant to consider using a choice-of-law clause in a restrictive covenant agreement – particularly a forfeiture-oriented compensation program – should re-evaluate this option. The court has signaled a much greater acceptance of arguments related to the need for uniformity via choice-of-law selection when employees are spread across multiple states. And, the court applied a fairly loose test on the need for a connection between the state law chosen and the transaction at issue.
  • Employers that rely solely upon either an ordinary noncompete contract in an employment agreement or a restrictive covenant in a deferred compensation plan should look at the possibility of using both and distinguishing between the remedies available under each. And employers that already use both should examine the advantage of having distinctly different remedies under each. The Texas Supreme Court appears to recognize a distinction between a forfeiture-only remedy (in the compensation plan) and one that provides for injunctive relief that would prohibit the employee from competing (usually in an employment agreement). If both remedies are contained in the same contract, the distinction may not be as useful.
  • Employers that do not want to put a noncompete in place but would still like to create a disincentive to disloyalty by departing employees will want to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the type of forfeiture clause enforced in ExxonMobil v. Drennan. The advantages are that it can be worded more broadly, can be enforced via another state's law if such is available, and may not be viewed with as much hostility under Texas law. And, it can be enforced through a plan administrator's decision without having to go to court. The disadvantages are that it acts only as a financial deterrent. It does not prevent the employee from going to a competitor. It creates only a financial price for doing so. And, the competitor may cover the employee's loss which would negate the disincentive.
  • Finally, employers should not assume forfeiture clauses are now automatically enforceable in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court's decision did not decide whether a broadly worded noncompete-triggered forfeiture clause is enforceable or unenforceable under Texas law. The court was clear about reserving this question for another day. Consequently, a level of uncertainty remains in place for these clauses when Texas law is the controlling law.

Footnote

1. Case No. 12-0621 (opinion delivered Aug. 29, 2014).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions