Atmel Corp. v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.
Colorado Court of Appeals
30 P. 3d 789 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Atmel Corporation (Atmel) (plaintiff), a semiconductor company in Colorado Springs, Colorado, filed suit against former employees Robert L. West, Patrick H. Jenkins, and Lattie Alejo (defendants) as well as Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Vitesse) (defendant), seeking injunctive relief to prohibit the individual defendants and Vitesse from “raiding” Atmel’s work force. Shortly after leaving Atmel for Vitesse, the individual employees provided Vitesse with names of other Atmel employees the company may want to hire. Atmel argues this violated the “non-solicitation” clause in the employment contract between the individual employees and Atmel which provided that an Atmel employee would not, for a period of one year following the termination of the employment relationship, either directly or indirectly, solicit, recruit, or attempt to persuade any person to terminate his or her employment with Atmel. The trial court granted Atmel’s request for an injunction and prohibited the individual defendants from soliciting or recruiting Atmel’s current employees to work for Vitesse. Additionally, the trial court’s order prevented Atmel employees from initiating contact with Vitesse regarding employment possibilities. Defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Metzger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.