Buffkin v. Glacier Group
Indiana Court of Appeals
997 N.E.2d 1 (2013)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Glacier Group (Glacier) (plaintiff) was an executive recruiting firm in the information technology (IT) sector. In 2008, Glacier hired Daniel Buffkin (defendant) as a sales recruiter. At the time, Buffkin had no experience, and Glacier taught him all the material aspects of the job. Buffkin did not deal directly with Glacier’s clients; rather, Glacier provided Buffkin with a job description, client identification, and anticipated compensation, and Buffkin identified potential candidates and turned them over to Glacier. Glacier claimed to have customers in 45 cities throughout the United States, but Buffkin did not recruit in all of them. Before commencing his employment, Buffkin signed a covenant not to compete, which provided that for three years after the termination of his employment with Glacier, Buffkin would not be connected in any way with any business that competed with Glacier in employee recruitment for employers that had offices anywhere in the continental United States. Buffkin left Glacier in 2011 and continued to work in IT recruiting. Glacier sued to enforce the noncompete, and the trial court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Buffkin from being connected in any way with any business competing with Glacier in the business of IT employee recruitment for employers with offices in the continental United States. Buffkin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.