~Tritt herein~ » The Colorado Court of Appea

On May 31 new balance 574 mens blue , 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court held that continued “at-will” employment is sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. In Lucht’s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, the Court reversed a widely publicized decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals which held that continued employment does not constitute adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement once an employee has begun working for an employer because the employee is in the same position as he was before he signed the noncompetition agreement. The Court of Appeals decision is reported at 224 P.2d 355 (Colo. App. 2009).



FACTS OF LUCHT’S
Lucht’s hired Horner as Mountain Division Manager on an at-will basis beginning in 2001. Lucht’s hired Horner as its “key person“ with connections to the concrete pumping industry. As such, Horner was solely responsible for establishing and maintaining the company’s client relationships in the mountain region – clients upon which Lucht’s relied for business.



On April 15 new balance 574 sweatshirt womens , 2003, while Horner was employed by Lucht’s, Horner signed a noncompetition agreement. Among other things, the agreement stated that in the event that Horner left his position, he would not “directly or indirectly solicit new balance 574 flower , induce, recruit or encourage any of [Lucht’s] employees or customers to leave [Lucht’s]“ for twelve months following his termination, and he would not divulge any trade secrets or other confidential information to any future employer. Horner was not offered any pay increase, promotion, or additional benefits at the time he signed the agreement.



Horner resigned from Lucht’s on March 12 new balance 574 island pack for sale , 2004, and began working for Everist three days later. Everist is a supplier of ready-mix concrete and had many of the same customers in the mountain region as Lucht’s. Shortly after Horner started, Everist entered the concrete pumping business in the mountain region, directly competing with Lucht’s, with Horner as its pumping manager.
Lucht’s sued Horner for breach of contract new balance 574 australia sale , breach of duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of trade value. It also sued Everist for intentional interference with contract, aiding and abetting a breach of duty of loyalty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty new balance 574 australia , and misappropriation of trade value.



DECISIONS OF TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS
The trial court granted summary judgment against Lucht’s on its claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with contract, concluding that the noncompetition agreement was unenforceable due to lack of consideration, which comes under the clause of equal employment opportunity. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a judgment that included extensive findings of fact and found in favor of Horner and Everist on the remaining claims.



Lucht’s appealed. As is relevant here, it argued that summary judgment was improperly entered on its breach of contract and interference with contract claims because Horner’s continued employment constituted adequate consideration to support the noncompetition agreement.



The Colorado Court of Appeals had concluded that as per Colorado employment laws the continued employment of an at-will employee cannot new balance 580 australia , by itself, constitute consideration for a noncompetition agreement if the employee had already begun working for an employer. Lucht’s, 224 P.3d at 358. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, even though an employer may agree to continue an at-will employee’s employment if the employee agrees to sign the covenant, nothing prevents the employer from discharging the employee at a future date and th