Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. American Senior Benefits LLC
2017 IL App (1st) 160687
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Bankers Life employed Gregory Gelineau as a branch sales manager in Warwick, Rhode Island; his 2006 employment agreement prohibited soliciting company agents or employees in his branch territory during employment and for 24 months after.
- Gelineau left Bankers Life in January 2015 and joined competitor American Senior Benefits (ASB) as senior vice president.
- Bankers Life alleged Gelineau solicited Warwick office employees by sending LinkedIn connection invitations to three Warwick employees and by directing ASB subordinates (notably Mark Medeiros) to recruit Bankers Life agents.
- Gelineau moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits denying targeted solicitation in the Warwick territory and asserting the LinkedIn messages were generic connection requests; Medeiros similarly denied being instructed to solicit Warwick agents.
- Bankers Life opposed with affidavits from company witnesses alleging receipt of LinkedIn invitations and requested additional discovery (depositions) under Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(b); the trial court granted summary judgment for Gelineau and denied further discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LinkedIn connection messages and profile job postings constituted solicitation in violation of the noncompetition/nonsolicitation covenant | LinkedIn invites were sent by Gelineau, directed recipients to an ASB job posting, and were part of a deliberate recruiting method | Messages were generic connection requests without mention of ASB or solicitation; viewing a public profile or job posting is recipient-initiated and not defendant’s solicitation | Held: Generic LinkedIn connection emails and a public job posting did not, as a matter of law, constitute prohibited solicitation of Warwick-area employees |
| Whether Gelineau instructed Medeiros (or others) to recruit Bankers Life Warwick employees | Bankers Life pointed to Medeiros’ contact with a Bankers Life agent and alleged that created a material dispute that Gelineau directed solicitation | Gelineau and Medeiros both attested that Gelineau did not instruct recruiting in the Warwick territory; Fernandez’s affidavit did not tie any instruction to Gelineau | Held: No genuine issue of material fact that Gelineau instructed soliciting in the Warwick territory; Fernandez’s affidavit did not create a material contradiction |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying additional discovery under Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(b) | Bankers Life needed depositions of Gelineau and Medeiros to test their affidavit assertions and discover communications | Trial court found plaintiff failed to show a minimal factual basis of targeted solicitation and thus had not justified further discovery | Held: No abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show the requisite minimum factual basis to compel the requested discovery |
| Standard for summary judgment application to noncompetition/sourcing via social media | Bankers Life argued disputed inferences from messages and other material created triable issues | Gelineau argued undisputed character of messages and lack of targeted contact in Warwick entitled him to judgment as a matter of law | Held: Summary judgment appropriate because plaintiff failed to establish an essential element (breach/solicitation) and reasonable minds could not infer prohibited conduct from the evidence presented |
Key Cases Cited
- W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 351 Ill. App. 3d 752 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (elements required to state breach of contract claim)
- Board of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 211 v. TIG Ins. Co., 378 Ill. App. 3d 191 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (summary judgment standard)
- Enhanced Network Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hypersonic Tech. Corp., 951 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (posting job opportunity on LinkedIn not solicitation)
- Amway Global v. Woodward, 744 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (substance of internet communications controls whether they are solicitations)
- Coface Coll. N. Am., Inc. v. Newton, [citation="430 F. App'x 162"] (3d Cir. 2011) (social-media activity considered in noncompetition/nonsolicitation context)
- Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. Cahill, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (E.D. Okla. 2013) (social-media posts about new employer did not, by themselves, violate nonsolicitation covenant)