Summary Judgment For Departed Employee Of Legal Staffing Company

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge AliKhan) granted summary judgement to a departed employee of a legal staffing company

HIRECounsel is a company in the legal staffing industry, working to recruit and match legal professionals with various employers. ECF No. 27-3, at 8; ECF No. 39, at 2. Starting in 2015, HIRECounsel employed Mr. Connolly in its Boston, Massachusetts office in the role of Managing Director of Client Relations. ECF No. 24-1, at 2; ECF No. 39, at 2. Upon his hiring, Mr. Connolly signed an Employment Agreement detailing the conditions of his employment. ECF No. 27-3, at 11-35; ECF No. 39, at 11-34. The contract specifies that it “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia.” ECF No. 27-3, at 23; ECF No. 39, at 22. Two provisions of the agreement are at issue here.

One provision involved confidentiality and trade secrets; the other was a non-compete.

Mr. Connolly resigned from HIRECounsel on August 7, 2020, and began working for a competitor, Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC (“Beacon Hill”), a few days later. ECF No. 35-1, at 2; ECF No. 27-3, at 49, 53-54. Mr. Connolly testified at his deposition that since moving to Beacon Hill, he has worked with some of HIRECounsel’s clients. ECF No. 40, at 69-70.

The lawsuit

HIRECounsel filed this lawsuit against Mr. Connolly in October 2020, bringing claims for: (1) breach of the non-compete provision of his employment agreement; (2) breach of the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement; and (3) misappropriation of trade secrets under the DCUTSA, D.C. Code § 36-401 et seq. ECF No. 1-1. HIRECounsel seeks $261,610.72 in liquidated damages, increasing every week by $2,335.81 due to the non-compete provision’s tolling clause. ECF No. 39, at 75; ECF No. 27-2, at 7. Mr. Connolly filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, which the court denied, ECF No. 12.

No proof of damages

At bottom, HIRECounsel fails to identify a dispute of material fact with respect to actual damages, and it cannot proceed with its claim in the absence of a showing of harm. Tsintolas Realty Co., 984 A.2d at 187 (explaining that damages are required in a breach of contract claim); Catalyst Chem. Servs., Inc, 350 F. Supp. 2d at 8 (explaining damages are required for a DCUTSA claim). For these reasons, Mr. Connolly is entitled to summary judgment on HIRECounsel’s breach of contract and DCUSTA claims.

(Mike Frisch)