Aon Gains Upper Hand in Non-Compete and Poaching Lawsuit vs. Alliant

By | March 22, 2017

  • March 22, 2017 at 10:31 am
    Some Guy says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 11

    This points to the bigger issue of agreeing to sign a non-compete in the first place. Why give an employer the ability to dictate where you can and can’t work?

    This case also opens the door to show just how Aon treats their employees [hint – they treat them like crap]

    • March 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm
      George Lee says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 3

      Amen!

  • March 22, 2017 at 2:35 pm
    John MacDonald says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    The challenge with non-competes is the fact that many individuals who sign them honor them to a degree. There are a portion of individuals who poach or pilfer data, clients, personnel that can have a negative effect on the process. In this case it would be interesting if the non-compete was specific to a company(s) that he could or not work for and his intentions. It would also be interesting if AON was willing or able to counter the offer or had the ability to address it of if the person who left AON and was promoted was something that happened in a short-time process. Also, the people who left were they a last minute departure or was it a planned series of resignations? The timeline here seems like it a fast process with little or no notice but would be interesting to know.

  • March 22, 2017 at 5:37 pm
    Joe K says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    Assuming the case history defined above is true, this is clearly a case of a planned takeover. Alliant would not have agreed to the leader’s transition unless and until he had set the stage for both a client base and the client service team. So we can rest assured that the key people that transitioned to Alliant were all well aware of the plan prior to the day of execution, and regardless of when they started as Alliant employees.

    So… at one end of the spectrum you have the state of CA being “employee friendly” in allowing individuals to move about the market freely, unencumbered by non-compete clauses written for the protection of the corporation. But this appears to be closer to the other end of that spectrum… and whether one likes or dislikes Aon, it is likely that courts will see this as a violation of a valid agreement and that the identified individual will face consequences.

    And one might add that it appears that Alliant may need to build a business the old fashioned way, should they want to compete in San Jose.

  • March 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm
    Joe K says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    Assuming the case history defined above is true, this is clearly a case of a planned takeover. Alliant would not have agreed to the leader’s transition unless and until he had set the stage for both a client base and the client service team. So we can rest assured that the key people that transitioned to Alliant were all well aware of the plan prior to the day of execution, and regardless of when they started as Alliant employees.

    So… at one end of the spectrum you have the state of CA being “employee friendly” in allowing individuals to move about the market freely, unencumbered by non-compete clauses written for the protection of the corporation. But this appears to be closer to the other end of that spectrum… and whether one likes or dislikes Aon, it is likely that courts will see this as a violation of a valid agreement and that the identified individual will face consequences.

    And one might add that it appears that Alliant may need to build a business the old fashioned way, if they want to play in San Jose.

  • March 23, 2017 at 2:04 pm
    Jason T says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Alliant has done this numerous times, Ascension being one of them!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*