Quantcast

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Friday, March 29, 2024

Justices back denial of judgment for bail bonds company in dispute with former employee

Lawsuits
Wvschero

CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court did not err when it denied a motion for declaratory judgment in favor of Special Services Bureau (SSB), a bail bonds company.

SSB appealed an order from April 25, 2018, that denied its motion for declaratory judgment to enforce a clause of its employment contract with Stacey Elizabeth Friend.

The Supreme Court found there was no substantial question of law or prejudicial error, according to the Sept. 9 decision.

SSB writes bail bonds in various counties across West Virginia and Maryland, and Friend, a Maryland resident, entered into an employment contract with the company in 2008.

Friend agreed to work exclusively for SSB as a bail bonds person and further agreed that she would not work as a bail bondsman within 100 miles of any SSB location for five years after termination of the contract unless she effected a buyout with a $100,000 payment.

Friend terminated the employment contract in 2017 and posted bond on behalf of an SSB competitor soon after. She did not make the payment of $100,000 to SSB, the lawsuit said.

SSB filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and preliminary injunctive relief, asking the circuit court for a determination that Friend had violated her contractual covenant not to compete, but the circuit court denied the request.

The court found that SSB had shown no "protectable employer interest" to justify the covenant signed by Friend because SSB had not imparted Friend with unusual or unique skills during the term of her employment with it, the ruling said.

The court also said that the employment contract did not contain a similar penalty to address any contract termination by the employer, according to the decision.

The Supreme Court said that since the circuit court didn't find that SSB had no interest in jeopardy, and the Supreme Court found that the circuit court did not err.

"The circuit court’s consideration of the reasonableness of the covenant was not necessary after the court found that the covenant failed on other grounds," the Supreme Court wrote in the decision.

West Virginia Supreme Court case No. 18-0478

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News