Regardless of whether the suit will hold up in court, in my opinion, Carl Lum has demonstrated a clear lack of business ethics. To me, that is the crux of the issue.
I'd honestly be shocked if Herschend hadn't asked him about this before hiring.
I know a handful of people who SEAS waived their non-compete when they left the company but they left in good terms and requested it before leaving. Carl also at the time of his hire had a much better idea of the current strategic plan than John Reilly would have as John had been gone for almost a year.
From what I am hearing, Carl just left the company and never gave any indication that he was going to work for a competitor. It's very likely that if he had communicated it beforehand and made it known that they gave him this offer and he wanted to accept it that SEAS would have waived his non-compete as a thank you for his years of service. But instead it seems like he didn't and that's part of the problem. As
@Nicole it seems that Carl displayed a lack of ethics in this situation.
Another point about John Reilly, I wouldn't be surprised if SEAS waived his non-compete as a way to soften the blow of not making him the permanent CEO.
When I've seen non-compete clauses (mostly media/broadcast contracts) most are for 1 year. I'd assume the crux of the suit and defense is whether they consider Herchend is "direct completion" since they're not in the same market(s).
I think most of SEAS are for 6 months and depending on the amount of knowledge you have of the future plan it can be a year.
