The Osler Institute, Inc. v. Lois Forde
386 F.3d 816
7th Cir.
2004
Check Treatment
Docket
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

The Osier Institute, Inc. appeals from an order granting its former employee, Lois Forde, attorney fees following her successful defense to this lawsuit.

In considering the merits of this case in Osler Institute, Inc. v. Forde, 333 F.3d 832 (7th Cir.2003), wе set out the facts in some detail; our recitation here will be brief. The Osier Institute, headquartered in Indiana, is a test preparation compаny which runs 60 to 70 seminars a year to help doctors prepare for medical board examinations. In 1995, Osier hired Lois Forde on a part-time basis tо coordinate some of its seminars. Forde and Osier parted ways in 2000 and she began working for PsyPrep, a new psychiatry board preparation company run by former Osier lecturers. Unhappy about Forde’s new employment, Osier turned to its employment agreement with Forde, which contained a noncompetition clause. Osier sent Forde a copy of the agreement and a draft of a complaint it said it was contemplating filing in federal court. Faced with a federal lawsuit, Forde promptly resigned from PsyPrep. Her resignation did not save her from the lawsuit, however. Osier filed its cоmplaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, setting out four claims: that Forde breached the employment agreement’s noncоmpetition clause; that she breached her fiduciary duty to the company; that she interfered with Osier’s relationship with its lecturers; and finally that she slandеred Osier’s founder.

The district judge granted summary judgment for Forde — sua sponte (we discussed this wrinkle in our previous decision) — and Osier appealed, taking issue primarily ‍​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‍with the dismissal of its claim based on the noncompetition clause. We affirmed the dismissal.

We now arrive at the current controversy. In addition to the noncompetition clause, the employmеnt contract contained a provision providing for attorney fees to the prevailing party. Under that provision, Forde sought and was granted attorney fees of almost $55,000. Osier appeals the fee award, contending that the employ *818 ment contract was found to be void and therefore, for various reasons, the attorney-fees provision cannot be used to support an award of fees. The argument is, in effect, that Forde prevailed too thoroughly and cannot now recover her fees.

It is uncontested that Indiana law provides the basis for decision. Indiana adheres to the American rule, under which, in the ‍​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‍absence of a statutory provision or an agreement providing for fees, each party is requirеd to pay its own attorney fees. Willie’s Construction Co. v. Baker, 596 N.E.2d 958 (Ind.App.1992). When a contract exists allowing for the recovery of attorney fees, the provision will be enforced according to its terms unless it violates public policy. Harrison v. Thomas, 761 N.E.2d 816 (Ind.2002).

Under Indiana law, as Osier points out, a partially illegal contract is wholly unenforcеable unless the illegal provisions can be eliminated without frustrating the contract’s basic purpose. Harbour v. Arelco, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1997). On this point, Osier is correct on the law but wrong in its аpplication. First of all, neither this court nor the district court found the noncompetition provision to be per se illegal. What Osier failed to show in this case is that it had a protectable interest in Forde’s future employment. Forde did not have access to protectable or confidential information; rather, her duties at Osier were administrative and organizational. Those duties, as they developed at Osier, were not of the type to which noncompetition agreements can apply. For that reason, the provision was described ‍​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‍as void as applied to her. The decisions said nothing at all about the legality of the clause were it applied to someone in whom Osier had a protectable intеrest. It is entirely possible that at the time the contract was entered into, both Osier and Forde may have had reason to think that her employment wоuld be of the type in which Osier would have a protecta-ble interest. Osier says as much in its brief when it says that the agreement was “prepared for one basic purpose — to protect Osier’s business by discouraging Forde from unfairly exploiting the unique competitive advantage she was forecasted to gain from her association with the company.” (Emphasis added.) As it turned out, she did not gain that unique competitive advantage, a fact she established to the satisfaction of both the district court and this court. Hаving prevailed by showing the noncompetition clause could not apply to her, she is entitled to her attorney fees under the contract.

Evеn were we to decide that somehow the prior decisions had found the contract to be illegal, we would still not be convinced that the attorney fees provision would be unenforceable. The contract contains a severability clause which provides that invalidity or unenforceability of “any term or provision, or any clause or portion thereof of this agreement shall in no way impair or affect the validity of enforсeability of any other provisions .... ” Despite that clause, Osier argues that the contract has been gutted and that therefore the contraсt’s severability clause is not enough to save a “moribund contract.” Although it acknowledges that Indiana courts have not decided what effect а severability clause has, Osier nevertheless says that a severability clause should not save a provision when the essential purpose of thе contract has been undermined.

We need not predict what Indiana courts would decide regarding severability clauses. Even if Osier is right, the argument cannot carry the day. While we agree ‍​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‍that the noncompetition provision is an important aspect of the contract, we are not сonvinced that it alone is the essential purpose. In addition to the non- *819 competition clause, the contract has other significant prоvisions. It entitles Forde to participate in pension, profit-sharing, medical or dental plans; to group term life insurance; to educational opportunities; to paid vacations and other benefits. It provides that the corporation will provide reimbursement for business expensеs. The final clause of the contract sets out a requirement for drug testing and for summary dismissal of an employee for using illegal drugs and several other infrаctions, including the falsification of a work record, violation of the nonsmoking policy, and insubordination. Surely these provisions are sufficiently significant to survive even in the absence of the noncompetition provision.

Furthermore, we are not convinced that the attorney-fees provision is somehow a poor cousin to the rest of the contract. The clause states:

5. ATTORNEY’S FEES: In the event any action is commenced by the Assoсiate or the Corporation against the other and related in any way to Associate’s employment ‍​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‍by the Corporation, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed by the other party for the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney fees incurred therein.

The clause provides a significant benefit to either party and is not limited to an award of fees for actions on the contract. The present action involved four separate claims against Forde, all involving her employment. The fact that she won by convincing us that she did not qualify for coverage under the noncompetition clause surely cannot mean that she loses the benefit of the sweeping attorney fees provision. We Affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees.