Emp't Staffing Grp., Inc. v. Little, 243 N.C. App. 266

Defendant Monica Little had worked for Employment Staffing Group (ESG) since 2001 and on June 13, 2014 signed a written Employment Agreement that included a non‑compete (50‑mile, 1 year) and a 2‑year no‑solicit clause.
The written agreement was silent as to consideration, but ESG's HR director told Little she would be paid $100 to execute the agreement, and $100 was deposited into her account four days later.
Little left ESG in July 2014 and shortly thereafter began soliciting ESG customers for a competitor; ESG sued asserting breach of the agreement and sought a preliminary injunction.
The trial court enjoined Little from soliciting ESG customers, competing within the scope of the covenant, and from disclosing confidential information. Little appealed the preliminary injunction.
On appeal the main dispute concerned whether the non‑compete was supported by valid and adequate consideration and whether parol evidence of the $100 payment could be considered despite a merger clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parol evidence of consideration may be used when written agreement is silent	Parol evidence admissible to supply an essential missing term (consideration)	Merger clause and parol evidence rule bar use of contemporaneous oral agreement about consideration	Court held parol evidence admissible because writing was not fully integrated as to consideration; the $100 payment could be considered
Whether $100 was illusory consideration	$100 was actual payment and thus sufficient to support the covenant	$100 was illusory because not stated in the written agreement	Court held payment was not illusory; it established consideration
Whether $100 was inadequate consideration (post‑employment covenant)	Parties are generally the judges of adequacy; small payments have been upheld	Payment inadequate because Little signed while already employed and under pressure to keep job (not arms‑length)	Court held adequacy challenge fails; courts generally do not reevaluate adequacy absent fraud or coercion; $100 upheld
Whether preliminary injunction was appropriate given likelihood of success	ESG likely to prevail on enforceability and breach; irreparable harm from solicitation and misuse of confidential info	Little disputed enforceability of non‑compete	Court affirmed preliminary injunction based on likelihood of ESG's success and protection of rights during litigation

Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Associates, Inc., 196 N.C. App. 299, 674 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (elements for valid non‑compete and precedent upholding small monetary consideration)
A.E.P. Indus., Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 302 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1983) (standard for preliminary injunctions and importance of timely appellate review)
Milner Airco, Inc. v. Morris, 111 N.C. App. 866, 433 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (new consideration required for covenants added to existing employment)
Craig v. Kessing, 297 N.C. 32, 253 S.E.2d 264 (N.C. 1979) (parol evidence admissible to supply missing terms where writing is not fully integrated)
Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C. App. 664, 318 S.E.2d 99 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984) (parol evidence allowed to prove essential terms omitted from writing)
Beal v. K. H. Stephenson Supply Co., Inc., 36 N.C. App. 505, 244 S.E.2d 463 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978) (admitting parol evidence where only limited terms appear in writing)
New Hanover Rent‑A‑Car, Inc. v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642, 525 S.E.2d 487 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) (considering parol evidence to determine assent to non‑compete)