Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. American Senior Benefits LLC
2017 IL App (1st) 160687
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Bankers Life employed Gelineau as branch sales manager in Warwick, Rhode Island and in 2006 he signed an employment agreement with a two‑year nonsolicitation clause covering his branch territory.
- Gelineau left Bankers Life in January 2015 and joined competitor American Senior Benefits (ASB) as senior VP; Bankers Life alleged ASB hired many former Bankers Life employees.
- Bankers Life sued Gelineau for breach of the nonsolicitation covenant, alleging he recruited Warwick employees by sending LinkedIn connection invitations that directed recipients to an ASB job posting and by directing subordinate Mark Medeiros to solicit Bankers Life agents.
- Gelineau moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits that his LinkedIn messages were generic connection requests, that he did not solicit Warwick employees, and that he expressly instructed Medeiros not to recruit in Warwick.
- Bankers Life submitted affidavits asserting receipt of LinkedIn invitations from Gelineau and Medeiros and sought additional discovery (depositions and LinkedIn records); the trial court granted summary judgment for Gelineau and denied further discovery. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LinkedIn invitations constituted solicitation under the nonsolicitation clause | LinkedIn invites were sent by Gelineau, pointed recipients to an ASB job posting, and were part of a recruiting modus operandi | Invitations were generic connection requests with no mention of ASB or solicitation; any viewing of Gelineau’s public profile/job posting was recipient‑driven | Court: Generic LinkedIn invites and a public job posting did not, as a matter of law, constitute solicitation of Warwick employees |
| Whether Gelineau instructed Medeiros to recruit Warwick employees | Bankers Life points to contact between Medeiros and a Warwick agent as evidence Gelineau directed solicitation | Gelineau and Medeiros both averred Gelineau did not direct recruitment in Warwick; Medeiros contacted some agents before ASB employment | Court: No admissible evidence that Gelineau instructed Medeiros to solicit Warwick employees; affidavits do not conflict on a material fact |
| Whether disputed facts required denial of summary judgment | Bankers Life argued affidavits and text messages created factual disputes about LinkedIn use and recruitment | Gelineau argued evidence showed only non‑soliciting LinkedIn use and recruiting focused outside Warwick | Court: Reasonable minds could not find a material factual dispute that would defeat summary judgment in favor of Gelineau |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying additional discovery under Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(b) | Bankers Life sought depositions and LinkedIn discovery to test defendants’ affidavits and establish solicitation | Trial court found plaintiff failed to present a minimal factual showing that Gelineau solicited Warwick employees, so further discovery was not warranted | Court: No abuse of discretion; plaintiff lacked the preliminary factual showing required to compel discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. TIG Insurance Co., 378 Ill. App. 3d 191 (Ill. App. Ct.) (summary judgment standard)
- W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Insurance Co., 351 Ill. App. 3d 752 (Ill. App. Ct.) (elements for breach of contract)
- Enhanced Network Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hypersonic Technologies Corp., 951 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App.) (LinkedIn job posting held not to be solicitation)
- Coface Collections North America Inc. v. Newton, [citation="430 F. App'x 162"] (3d Cir.) (social media conduct implicated in noncompete remedy)
- Amway Global v. Woodward, 744 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Mich.) (substance of internet communication controls solicitation analysis)
- Pre‑Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Cahill, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (E.D. Okla.) (social media posts viewed by former colleagues did not violate nonsolicitation covenant)
- Yuretich v. Sole, 259 Ill. App. 3d 311 (Ill. App. Ct.) (plaintiff must have minimal factual showing before compelling discovery)