Enforced non-solicitation agreement against home care worker preventing home care worker from soliciting home care company’s clients and from interfering with the company’s provision of services.

Issue: Non-solicitation | Employment Agreement

Court: Wayne County Circuit Court (Michigan)

Industry: Healthcare

Judge: Judge Muriel Hughes

Case Description

My client provided home care services, specializing in helping those injured in motor vehicle and work-related accidents.

My client, through hard-earned experience, knew enough to have its home care aides sign an employment agreement with a non-solicitation clause; these provisions are regularly enforceable under Michigan law.

Given that its workers were subject to non-solicitation provisions, my client was shocked to find that one of its home care aides attempting to solicit patients so that the home care aid could divert the business for herself. Even after agreeing not to solicit patients, some employees test their employer’s resolve to enforce non-solicitation provisions.

The home care work was also defaming my client to the insurance company responsible for assigning and paying for the care of these patients. This is a common tactic in unfair competition and solicitation situations: the home care worker was going directly to the source who awarded the work, the insurance company, to help ensure she intercepted the work.

Worse yet, the home care worker was providing healthcare services that conflicted with my client’s recommendations, jeopardizing the safety of these vulnerable patients.

Upon my client’s revelation, my client asked me to take immediate action to enforce the non-solicitation provision and stop the harmful communications with the insurance company.

I acted quickly and thoroughly explained the situation to the court, and the risk to the patient. The Court ordered the home aide to stop doing any further business with the patient. The Court also ordered the home aide from soliciting any further home patients of the home care company. Just as importantly, the Court ordered the home aide from interfering with the home care company’s provision of service with the patients, including communicating with the insurance company responsible for assigning, and paying for, the care.

This case illustrates some of the tactics that devious individuals use to unfairly compete in order to divert money for themselves. Courts will not tolerate this kind of “competition.” But it is critical for the attorney to provide the factual details, supported by evidence, that enable the judge to make a reasoned ruling in your favor.