Hassler v. Circle C Resources

505 P.3d 169 (2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P hired D, a CNA, on March 17, 2015, to provide residential habilitation care in her home in Converse County for one of its long-term adult clients (hereinafter referred to as Client). D signed P's 'Confidentiality and Noncompetition Agreement.' During the term of D's employment by P and for 24 months after the end of such employment, D agreed that D will not, without the prior written consent otherwise, engage in or assist others to engage in or have any interest in any business which competes with P, or provide services themselves similar to the services provided by P. Client's mother, who was also her legal guardian, became dissatisfied with P's day habilitation services and decided to find another provider. Client's case manager notified P that Client was changing providers and D was leaving its employ. Client remained in D's home for residential habilitation services and was transferred to another provider for day rehabilitation. D with assistance from the case manager, worked to obtain her own Medicaid number so she could be a provider, Client's residential habilitation care was billed under another Medicaid provider. D was paid significantly more by the new provider than she was by P. P sent a letter to D informing her that she was violating the noncompete agreement and demanded she 'cease and desist' her activities 'for at least 12 consecutive months' or it would file suit to enjoin her from violating the agreement and to recover its damages. D received her Medicaid number in July 2017 and stated to P she would not 'do paid services starting 8-7-17' until the matter was resolved. Client continued to live in her home and she occasionally helped with Client's care. D's husband and daughter cared for Client most of the time and were paid, through Medicaid, for their services. P sued D seeking damages for breach of the noncompete agreement. D claimed the noncompete agreement was unenforceable and void as against public policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the court ruled for P. The court held that the noncompete agreement was reasonable and enforceable if the geographical area subject to restriction was narrowed to include only Natrona and Converse counties and the duration of the restriction was changed from 24 to 12 months. Applying the blue pencil rule, the district court narrowed the restrictions accordingly and then ruled for P. It granted judgment in P's favor for $94,742.10. D appealed.