Total Articles: 3
Fisher Phillips • December 30, 2016
Earlier this month, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a party in litigation seeking to prevent responsive discoverable information from disclosure under a protective order must first demonstrate that the information in fact constitutes trade secrets or other confidential information before a protective order can be entered. This seemingly obvious requirement illustrates the dangers that can be posed by cutting corners early on in litigation.
Fisher Phillips • June 07, 2011
As with any contract, to be enforceable, a post-employment restrictive covenant must be supported by consideration. In some states, if a restrictive covenant is signed by an at-will employee after the inception of employment, the covenant must be supported by new and independent consideration (such as a promotion or a raise in salary). In other states, the promise of continued employmentâ€”even to an at-will employeeâ€”constitutes sufficient consideration.
Ogletree Deakins • June 07, 2011
On May 31, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court (sitting en banc) answered an open question in Colorado â€“ whether continued at-will employment is sufficient consideration for a noncompetition agreement entered into after hire. In Luchtâ€™s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, the Court reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals and held that continued at-will employment, alone, is sufficient. Because a Colorado employer has a legal right to terminate an at-will employee at any time, the Court held, an employerâ€™s forbearance of termination of at-will employment is adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement executed after employment has commenced. Luchtâ€™s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, No. 09SC627, Colorado Supreme Court (May 31, 2011).