On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the Findings of the District Court. The court began its analysis by confirming that under Minnesota law, a non-compete agreement must be a balancing of an employment contract or is accompanied by independent consideration in order to be applicable. While Minnesota law does not require additional consideration for a non-compete agreement if it is executed at the beginning or “beginning” of the employment relationship, an independent consideration must be provided when a non-compete agreement is made after an employment contract is entered into to make it enforceable. Stier`s employment eventually went from part-time to program director at the security centre. After nearly 12 years of operation, Stier resigned from the Security Centre and began working as a program manager for his newly created competitor. In particular, Safety Center filed a complaint and claimed that Stier`s actions violated the non-compete agreement. In CPI Card Group, Inc. v. Dwyer, 294 F.Supp.3d 791 (D.
Minn. 2018), the court granted rights to omission to the plaintiff employer who sued his former employee and his new employer, a competitor, for breach of contract and breach of contractual rights. Dwyer, a former senior Account Executive, was the subject of a one-year competition, non-invitation and non-compete agreement with his employer CPI Card Group (“CPI”). Dwyer secured a job and signed an employment contract with ICC`s main multi-packaging solutions (MPS) competitor before resigning from CPI. MPS was aware of Dwyer`s non-compete clause. While Dwyer stayed at the ICC for a few months to help clients transition, he shared the names of CPI clients and details of CPI`s business relationship with MPS. Dwyer also negotiated with the CONSOMMATION Price Index an amendment to its non-compete clause that eliminated its non-competition obligations and significantly reduced its non-invitation requirements. Dwyer kept MPS informed of the progress of the negotiations, while the consumer price index was not aware of MPS`s involvement. In granting actions to cease the consumer price, the Tribunal found that Dwyer violated its non-compete agreement before the amendment was signed, by transmitting confidential information to his personal email minutes before his resignation and by transmitting confidential information directly to MPS.
The Tribunal also found that the consumer price index cleared up a probability of success with respect to the evidence of the fraudulent amendment and therefore quashed. In this case, these are classic elements of an illicit competition case: (1) electronic documents from management to its personal e-mail account; (2) The executive did not tell the truth about what he was doing, and (3) the former employer conducted a computer research and disclosed his activities.