Gossard Vs Adia Services Case Analysis

Non-compete agreements are an essential component of employer and employee relations. Sometimes, however, situations may arise in which it is not so clear that a breach of contract has occurred. The following are prime examples of the complexities involved in non-compete agreement cases.

Gossard v. Adia Services, Inc., 723 So.2d (Fla. 1998) In Gossard, Plaintiff Richard Gossard, a franchisee of Nursefinders filed a suit against Adia Services Inc. for interfering with the performance of a non-compete agreement. In 1986, Gossard negotiated an agreement with Carr, founder of Nursefinders. The contract contained an exclusivity clause which provided that neither Nursefinders “nor any person or firm authorized or licensed by it shall establish

The appeals court placed its emphasis on these elements of tortious interference: (1) “the existence of a business relationship (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the defendant; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the relationship.” Additionally, the court sought to find if the tort elements were congruent with the following assertions made by Gossard. Nursefinders and Gossard had an agreement that prohibited a parent or affiliate of Nursefinders from providing similar services within Gossard’s territory. Adia knew of the agreement prior to its purchase. Adia purchased Star Med, a direct competitor operating in Gossard’s franchise territory. Contrarily, The Supreme Court applied a more narrow focus on the question of law posed by the eleventh circuit and focused strictly on whether Adia was bound to a contract established prior to acquiring Nursefinders and Star Med. It also questioned if the purchase of Star Med, an already established competitor in the territory had, in fact, changed the dynamic of business competition in the disputed

and Sylvie Forjet, appealed a temporary injunction entered in favor of Appellee Amedisys and against Forjet. For eighteen months, Amedisys employed Forjet. Forjet’s responsibilities consisted of maintaining working relationships with case managers at different health facilities that provided health services to Amedisys. Upon being hired, Forjet signed a non-compete agreement. She agreed that during her employment and one year after termination that she would not stand in the way of Amedysis’ business interest. Furthermore, she would not contact, solicit, or communicate with a client, customer patient, or referral source. After parting with Amedisys, in June 2014, Forjet began working for Infinity and immediately began soliciting referrals that once referred prospects to Amedisys, specifically, The Cleveland Clinic. Amedisys soon filed suit against Infinity and Forjet claiming both a breach of contract against Forjet and tortious interference against