3:23-cv-00688
D. Conn.Nov 7, 2023Background
- Gartner (provider of global syndicated research/advisory) sued Hackett, and former Gartner employees Jeffrey Faramo and John Van Decker for breach of contract, trade-secret misappropriation, and tortious interference; Gartner moved for a preliminary injunction.
- Faramo (Gartner 2004–2023) and Van Decker (Gartner 2008–2022) each signed March 4, 2022 employment agreements containing one-year, global post‑employment non‑disclosure, non‑competition, and non‑solicitation covenants defining specific "Competitive Acts."
- Both accepted employment with Hackett (a direct competitor in syndicated research); evidence showed Faramo emailed Gartner documents to his personal account and transferred files to Hackett devices, and Van Decker concealed his Hackett hire while later leading Hackett’s research team.
- At an evidentiary hearing, the parties consented to an injunction requiring return/destruction of Gartner confidential materials; remaining dispute concerned enforcement of the non‑competition covenants and tolling.
- The court found Gartner likely to succeed on breach of contract, held the agreements reasonable and enforceable under Connecticut law, found irreparable harm absent relief (including trade‑secret risks), and granted a 12‑month injunction (tolling the contractual restriction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faramo and Van Decker breached their non‑competes | They are employed in substantially similar roles at Hackett and are engaging in defined "Competitive Acts." | Hackett denies it is a direct competitor; defendants dispute breach scope. | Court: Breach established; Hackett is a competitor and both defendants engaged in Competitive Acts. |
| Enforceability/reasonableness of one‑year, worldwide covenants under Connecticut law | Covenants are reasonable: one‑year term, global scope fits Gartner’s global business, protect trade secrets and client relationships. | Covenants are overbroad (no geographic limit, broad "Competitive Acts") and unreasonably restrain employment. | Court: Covenants reasonable and enforceable as applied to these employees. |
| Whether Gartner will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Loss or disclosure of trade secrets and client relationships is difficult/impossible to quantify; monetary damages inadequate. | Gartner has not shown actual lost revenue; money damages are adequate. | Court: Irreparable harm proven given trade‑secret risks and difficulty of measuring future business loss. |
| Balance of hardships and public interest | Enforcing contracts protects Gartner and does not unduly restrict employment; public interest favors enforcement of contracts and trade‑secret protection. | Injunction unduly restricts employees and public interest in labor mobility. | Court: Hardships and public interest tip to Gartner; preliminary injunction granted (12 months; no bond). |
Key Cases Cited
- Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) (sets the four‑factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2011) (heightened standard for mandatory injunctions altering status quo)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (mandatory injunctions require clear likelihood of success)
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts must consider adequacy of legal remedies; no categorical presumption of irreparable harm)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (injunctive relief requires showing legal remedies inadequate)
- Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1999) (loss of client relationships is difficult to quantify; supports irreparable harm finding)
- FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., 730 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1984) (trade‑secret loss not readily compensable by money damages)
- CCT Commc'ns, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 327 Conn. 114 (2017) (elements of breach of contract under Connecticut law)
- Robert S. Weiss & Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight, 208 Conn. 525 (1988) (Connecticut reasonableness factors for non‑compete covenants)
- New Haven Tobacco Co. v. Perrelli, 18 Conn. App. 531 (1989) (Connecticut standard for evaluating post‑employment restraints)