Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC
South Carolina Court of Appeals
419 S.C. 622 (2017)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
From December 2012 until June 2013, Joshua Fay (plaintiff) worked for Total Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL) (defendant). TQL provided truck transportation and related logistics and brokerage services. Fay was employed as a sales-account executive. As an employment condition, Fay signed a noncompete, confidentiality, and nonsolicitation agreement (the agreement). The agreement contained provisions that prohibited the disclosure of confidential information, which was broadly defined to include all information disclosed to Fay during employment, all manner of policies and procedures, customer information, pricing and marketing information, and terms of business dealings. The nondisclosure provisions purported to be binding “at all times,” and if Fay worked in a similar position for a competing business, it was presumed that disclosure of confidential information would “necessarily and inevitably result.” After Fay’s termination, Fay worked for a competing business as a sales agent. TQL threatened to pursue legal action against Fay for violating the agreement. Fay preemptively sued TQL, seeking a declaratory judgment that the agreement was unenforceable. Fay argued that the agreement would effectively prevent him from working in the truck-shipping industry throughout the United States. TQL responded that the agreement was valid because Fay could still work in some capacity based on using his general skills and knowledge obtained from his employment at TQL. The court upheld the agreement and entered summary judgment for TQL. Fay appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.