Cases
Rep Matters: Kevin Greene Provides Expert Opinion in Western Australia Supreme Court Decision Granting Interlocutory Injunction in Favor of Employer Seeking to Enforce Restrictive Covenants of Employment Agreement
In NAIAD Dynamics US Inc. v. Vidakovic, the Western Australia Supreme Court granted injunctive relief in favor of an Australian employer seeking to prevent a former employee located in Connecticut from engaging in prohibited activities in violation of the restrictive covenants included in his employment agreement. The former employer was successful with the assistance of Attorney Kevin Greene, who provided a necessary expert opinion with regard to Connecticut law governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants
non-competition covenants in particular.
NAIAD Dynamics US Inc. ( NAIAD ) is a Connecticut corporation involved in the design, manufacture,
sale of maritime ride control systems in the global market. In 2009, NAIAD hired the defendant, Mr. Vidakovic as its Global Sales Director
executed an employment agreement, which included non-compete, non-solicitation,
confidentiality clauses. In 2016 Mr. Vidakovic resigned from employment with NAIAD
shortly thereafter began employment with an Australian competitor, VEEM, Ltd. NAIAD brought action in the Western Australia Supreme Court against Mr. Vidakovic for breach of the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement
sought injunctive relief preventing him from working for VEEM.
In order for NAIAD to successfully argue the enforceability of its non-competition clause, it had to present an expert opinion on Connecticut employment law. In this role, Attorney Greene provided his opinion with regard to Connecticut law governing restrictive covenants in the employment context, including the threshold requirement, the five-factor test for determining the validity
enforceability of a covenant not to compete,
the blue-pencil exception. The Western Australia Supreme Court ultimately held that NAIAD's two-year non-competition clause was enforceable
granted an injunction restraining Mr. Vidakovic from employment with VEEM based on the legal opinion
reasoning offered by Attorney Greene.
Defendant's Verdict Obtained for Big Box Retailer
Kevin J. Greene recently obtained a defendant's verdict in New Haven Superior Court in a case involving a big box retailer. The plaintiff claimed she slipped
fell on water entering the North Haven, Connecticut store, sustaining significant physical injuries. The case was defended successfully by presenting evidence that water was not present on the floor for a sufficient length of time such that the retailer could be deemed to have constructive notice of the defect
that the retailer had reasonable measures
precautions in place to properly monitor the safety of the floors in the store.
$740,000.00 Counterclaim Judgment in Favor of Danbury Area Accounting Firm Client
Kevin J. Greene
Joseph Biraglia successfully defended a well-regarded Danbury area accounting practice
its managing partner in a contentious multi-million-dollar claim for breach of a limited liability partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty
dissolution brought by a former partner. Our client vehemently denied the plaintiff's claims
filed counterclaims in accordance with the partnership agreement. The case was tried in Danbury Superior Court over the course of two weeks. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Halloran & Sage's client on all claims made by the plaintiff
also entered judgment in favor of our client for $740,000.00 on the counterclaim against the plaintiff for breach of the partnership agreement's non-compete provision. The case is currently on appeal. The trial court's decision is available here.
Successful Defense of Retaliation Claim
Halloran & Sage successfully defended an employment retaliation claim brought against Roto Rooter by a technician who alleged he was terminated by this national plumbing service company because he had previously filed claims for wage/hour violations
national origin discrimination. The case was arbitrated for several days
all issues were found in favor of Roto Rooter. The defense centered on a detailed analysis of the employee's performance metrics
profitability ratings relative to his peers as well as cross examination to elicit bias from former coworkers who were also terminated who were called by the claimant to testify regarding alleged statements of retaliatory intent made by the claimant's supervisor
branch managers.
For more information contact: Kevin Greene.
