EMSL Analytical, Inc., v. Younker
Texas Court of Appeals
154 S.W.3d 693 (2004)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL) (plaintiff) provided environmental testing services to customers. In 2002, Diane Younker (defendant) started working at EMSL as a manager of the microbiology laboratory. Younker signed an agreement containing noncompetition and nondisclosure clauses. Under the agreement, Younker could not disclose the company’s confidential information or trade secrets. To enforce the nondisclosure agreement, EMSL required employees like Younker to agree not to work for customers or in other microbiology laboratories in Texas and Louisiana for a period of 12 months following termination from EMSL. Thereafter, EMSL provided Younker with access to allegedly confidential laboratory-testing processes and procedures and EMSL’s customer database. In 2003, Lockheed Martin Space Operations (Lockheed) hired EMSL for a project in which EMSL tested Lockheed’s equipment that was intended for use in an international space station. Younker worked on the project, analyzing samples and reporting results to Lockheed. In 2004, Younker resigned from EMSL and began working for Lockheed. According to Younker’s sworn testimony, her job duties for Lockheed were completely different; at Lockheed, she provided scientific support for engineers on different kinds of equipment. Lockheed did not have a microbiology laboratory. EMSL sued Younker, alleging breach of contract, among other claims, and sought injunctive relief. EMSL applied for a temporary injunction to stop Younker’s employment at Lockheed so that she would not disclose confidential information. There was no evidence that Younker had disclosed or intended to disclose any of EMSL’s confidential information, but EMSL theorized that she might be put into a position in which she would be required to disclose confidential information relating to her EMSL laboratory work. The trial court denied EMSL’s application, and EMSL appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hedges, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.