Darr v. Roberts Marketing Group, LLC
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 454
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Darr, an at-will life-insurance telesales agent, was told in late Jan 2013 that continued employment was contingent on signing a new Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreement with broad restrictions (36‑month non‑compete nationwide, liquidated‑damages clause, fee shifting, jury‑trial waiver, waiver of defenses, tolling provision).
- Employer set a tight deadline to sign (February 1), held a company meeting, provided a notary, and did not permit negotiation of terms; Darr asked for time to consult counsel and met with management Jan 30–31.
- Darr left work Feb 1 after attempting to consult an attorney and then returned Feb 4 but left the premises after a disputed encounter; Employer treated the absence as job abandonment and he did not return.
- A deputy initially found Darr was discharged (eligible for benefits); the appeals tribunal and Commission reversed, concluding Darr voluntarily quit without good cause.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether Darr voluntarily left and, if so, whether he had good cause attributable to the employer for quitting because of the forced non‑compete.
Issues
| Issue | Darr's Argument | Roberts Marketing's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Darr voluntarily left or was discharged | He was effectively discharged or left because he refused to accept an imposed employment condition (non‑compete); his final separation was caused by employer conduct | Darr voluntarily quit by leaving the premises and failing to make arrangements to remain | Court assumed voluntary leaving (Feb 4) but analyzed good‑cause; Commission’s factual conflict could support either, but court proceeds on voluntary‑quit assumption |
| Whether refusal to sign the non‑compete was good cause attributable to the employer to quit | Refusal was reasonable and in good faith because the agreement imposed a substantial, non‑negotiable change in working conditions that would impair his ability to earn a living | Employer maintained the policy was legitimate, extensions were available to employees, and Darr unreasonably failed to arrange counsel time | Court held Darr had good cause: the non‑compete was a substantial, adverse change, offered on an ultimatum basis, and Darr made good‑faith efforts to resolve the issue |
| Whether there was competent/substantial evidence to support the Commission’s findings (scope/availability of extensions) | Record did not support Commission’s findings that an extension was offered to Darr and understated the agreement’s scope | Commission relied on evidence suggesting extensions for others and characterized the restriction narrowly | Court held two Commission findings lacked competent substantial evidence (no proof Darr was offered an extension; Commission understated the non‑compete’s breadth), so Commission erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1980) (standard for reviewing Commission decisions)
- Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012) (Missouri law on enforceability and reasonableness of non‑compete agreements)
- Sokol v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 946 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. App. W.D.1997) (holding forced immediate signing of a broadened non‑compete can justify a voluntary quit with good cause)
- Shelby v. Hayward Baker, Inc., 128 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. App. S.D.2004) (good‑cause legal standard; employee must try to resolve problem before quitting)
- Osman v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 332 S.W.3d 890 (Mo. App. W.D.2011) (deference and scope of review for Commission fact findings)
Conclusion: The court reversed the Commission, finding Darr had good cause attributable to his employer for voluntarily leaving due to the employer’s ultimatum to sign a broad non‑compete without adequate opportunity to consult counsel; case remanded for benefits determination in accordance with this opinion.