Answers Posted By Christopher Ezold

Answer to non-compete

Refusing to sign a noncompete can lead to termination, but the noncompete may not be effective.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, refusing to sign a noncompete can lead to termination, but the noncompete may not be effective if you do sign it.

You have to receive compensation for your promise not to compete; getting a NEW job is considered compensation. KEEPING your old job is NOT considered compensation. Therefore, unless you are paid something - a promotion, money, etc., in exchange, if you sign it, it is likely not effective.

If you don't sing the ineffective agreement, the company can legally terminate you.

It's a strange situation in which you can do what they want and not be bound, OR refuse to sign an ineffective agreement and get fired.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted May 26, 2009 09:17 AM [EST]

Answer to non-compete

Answer to Defamation or slander or both ???

The question generally is whether the defamation is "per se" or not.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, the question generally is whether the defamation is "per se" or not. If your former employer's defamation included �words that impute (1) criminal offense, (2) loathsome disease, (3) business misconduct, or
(4) serious sexual misconduct,� then you will need to prove actual harm (i.e. harm to your reputation, etc.). If your employer's defamation is not 'per se,' that is, includes words that defame you, but not in the four categories listed above, then you will have to prove not only actual harm, but 'special harm.' 'Special harm' is essentially money damages - loss of a job, contract, etc.

In this case, your employer does not appear to have reduced your pay, terminated you or otherwise reacted negatively to the defamation. If you have not suffered ANY damages, then you do not have a legal claim for the defamation. If you suffer only reputational damages, and the defamation is not 'per se,' then you will not have a legal claim.

So, the issue is to determine what EXACTLY was said by your employer to see if it is 'per se' defamation. The exact, specific words are always necessary. Next, you need to determine if you suffered reputational damages and/or money damages.

I will not that if your employer trash talked you, but stated it as his opinion only, there is likely no claim. Furthermore, if your employer was telling the truth, then you will have no claim.

However, it is likely your employer was claiming some type of business misconduct/slandering your ability to do your job. If so, and you can show ANY reputational damage, even if you do not lose your job, then you will likely have a claim of defamation against your employer (and if you lose your job, a claim for tortious interference with contract).

GENERALLY, YOU HAVE ONLY ONE (1) YEAR TO BRING THESE CLAIMS! You should determine the words said, the damages flowing from the words and the dates they were said, and see an attorney immediately if you believe you have a case. One year is actually very little time to start litigation.

Finally, in reality, your former employer is likely slandering you elsewhere - you should immediately investigate whether he has slandered you to other employers, industry members, common acquaintances, etc., in order to 'stop the bleeding.'

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted May 7, 2009 09:18 AM [EST]

Answer to non-compete hair salon agreement

A noncompete may not apply when the old employer and new employer provide different services.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, a noncompete may not apply when the old employer and new employer provide different services. To be enforceable, a noncompetition agreement MUST be related to a legitimate business interest of the employer. Merely preventing competition is NOT a legitimate business interest; instead, protecting trade secrets, the relationships you built for the employer, the investment in training that was given to you, etc., are legitimate business interests.

If you are providing different services now than when you were employed by the first salon, the salon may not have a legitimate business interest in stopping you from competing - after all, what harm are you doing? This is a very fact-sensitive inquiry, however, and I'd need to know more to form a good opinion. Furthermore, many noncompete agreements are invalid because they do not follow other technical requirements under the law - I cannot tell if this is so in your case.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted May 5, 2009 10:17 AM [EST]

Answer to Non-compete agreement

An employer that rents products may not be competing with an emploeyr that sell the products.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, an employer that rents products may not be competing with an emploeyr that sell the products. I say "may" as this is a very fact-specific matter. If the rental market never takes a bite out of the sales market, then there appears to be no 'legitimate business reason' for the noncompete. In Pennsylvania, a noncompetition agreement MUST HAVE a legitimate business reason.

Furthermore, you may be able to avoid problems by avoiding products that your current employer sells. Many noncompetition agreements are also void based on failure of consideration, overbreadth and other reasons; it is possible that it is not enforceable regardless of legitimate business reason.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Apr 29, 2009 4:04 PM [EST]

Answer to Wrongful termimation

Absent other facts, there is nothing illegal about being replaced by the owner's girlfriend.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, absent other facts, there is nothing illegal about being replaced by the owner's girlfriend. An employer is allowed to hire who they want, and fire who they want, without any justification or good reason. Employees are allowed to leave a job without warning or any good justification. If you had a contract, however, that might change.

Furthermore, if the owner terminated you because of your age, race, gender, religion, disability,etc., or if the employer terminated you because you complained of discrimination, refused to commit a crime, applied for worker's compensation or reported a violation of the law to a government agency, you may have a claim.

Based on your question, however, it does not appear that any of these scenarios apply.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Apr 21, 2009 3:07 PM [EST]

Answer to non-compete

A noncompetition agreement is generally not enforceable against an employee who has been laid off.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said,a noncompetition agreement is generally not enforceable against an employee who has been laid off - through no fault of the employee. If, however, you have been terminated due to your own fault, the noncompete may be enforceable.

The courts don't like employers to lay off workers, and then restrict those workers from earning a living.

Furthermore, if you had reached an agreement as to the terms of your employment with your employer, and then get surprised with a noncompete on your first day, you may not be bound.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Apr 20, 2009 1:28 PM [EST]

Answer to Sorting through benefits / options when

Stacking of benefits upon termination.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, the benefits you list can generally stack upon termination. Unemployment compensation generally does not take into consideration severance, payout of vested vacation pay after termination or insurance payments. Unemployment compensation does take into account Social Security payments and pension/retirement payments made after full vesting. Health insurance (COBRA) is not included at all.

Payment of accrued vacation or PTO time is made if the employer's policy is that it is payable upon termination, generally without regard to severance, COBRA or unemployment compensation.

COBRA payments, if offered, are not affected by other types of termination compensation.

Severance payments are not mandatory, but are up to the employer (unless a valid contract for severance exists).

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Apr 7, 2009 10:24 AM [EST]

Answer to Appplebee's health problem

You cannot sue because you eat badly on the job.

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

That being said, you cannot sue because you eat badly on the job. I'm tempted to wonder if this question is a joke; but if not - you have no claim. The schedule your employer requires of you does not require that you eat badly; you could prepare healthy meals to bring to work or eat salads on the fly at Applebee's.

If you are wondering whether you can sue for being required to work 65 or 70 hours per week, it is highly unlikely. Management is generally not covered by overtime rules. If you have a contract that requires you to work only 50 hours, then you might have a claim.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Mar 25, 2009 1:21 PM [EST]

Answer to Does new COBRA rule apply to me?

Your termination was the

Before I respond to your inquiry, I must state that we have not spoken, I have not reviewed the relevant documents and facts, and I do not represent you. Therefore, my discussion below is not a legal opinion, but is informational only. Finally, my discussion applies only to issues to which Pennsylvania or Federal law apply, unless otherwise specified.

The basic rule is: employees who had a 'qualifying event' on or after September 1, 2008 may have a second chance to elect COBRA coverage. They must be notified of their new COBRA rights and the new
65% COBRA subsidy by April 18, 2009.

That being said, your termination was the 'qualifying event' triggering COBRA coverage, not the last day of health insurance coverage (extended due to severance). Unfortunately, the extended and subsidized COBRA coverage now available appears to apply to people terminated on or after September 1, 2008.

This does not mean that you should not contact your former employer and ask to be provided the extended coverage COBRA notice; their plan may allow for you to be covered in this circumstance. Whether case law will develop showing extended/subsidized benefits to be available to employees terminated before September 1, 2008, but whose benefits extended past September 1, 2008, remains to be seen.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at the below address(es) or number.

/Christopher E. Ezold/
Nancy O'Mara Ezold, P.C.
One Belmont Avenue,
Suite 501
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(610) 660-5585
Cezold@Ezoldlaw.com
www.ezoldlaw.com

posted Mar 23, 2009 6:02 PM [EST]

Displaying answers 131 - 140 of 361 << Previous Page Next Page >>