Hassler v. Circle C Resources

505 P.3d 169 (2022)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hassler v. Circle C Resources

Wyoming Supreme Court
505 P.3d 169 (2022)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Circle C Resources (Circle C) (plaintiff) provided day and residential habilitation services. The residential services could be provided to clients in the homes of Circle C’s employees. In 2015, Circle C hired Charlene Hassler (defendant) to provide care in her home. Hassler signed a noncompetition agreement, which restricted her from working in any competitive capacity to Circle C for 24 months after the end of her employment and in any geographic area where Circle C provided services, including in seven named counties of Wyoming. The agreement further provided that if a court were to find that any provision of the noncompetition agreement was unenforceable, then Hassler agreed to abide by reasonable restrictions substituted by the court. Hassler went on to provide full-time care for a client (the client) in her home. In 2017, the client became dissatisfied with the day habilitation services provided by Circle C and decided to switch providers. Hassler ended her employment with Circle C but still provided services to the client, who remained living in Hassler’s home. Circle C sued Hassler for violating the noncompetition agreement. Circle C conceded that the agreement’s duration and geographic restrictions were unreasonable. Circle C wished to restrict Hassler’s ability to compete for 12 months in two counties. On summary judgment, the court found in favor of Circle C by applying the “blue pencil” rule. The court found the noncompetition agreement was enforceable if the restrictions were narrowed to only two counties and 12 months in duration. Hassler appealed, arguing that the noncompetition agreement should be entirely void and unenforceable because it violated public policy.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kautz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership