|
The Johnson Group Prevails Against Aerotek Trade Secrets Action.
The Johnson Group resoundingly prevailed in its jury and court trial against industry-giant Aerotek, defeating Aerotek’s damage and injunctive relief claims. The jury ruled that The Johnson Group and an ex-Aerotek employee, Michael Ponce, did not cause any harm to Aerotek as a result of alleged solicitations of Aerotek’s clients. You will recall that Aerotek had brought a claim under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act alleging that they had sustained multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and that The Johnson Group had correspondingly been unjustly enriched due to The Johnson Group’s alleged misappropriation of Aerotek’s clients and client contact information. The Johnson Group defended against the claims by arguing that in the staffing industry it is the clients that “own” the relationships and that because most employers use multiple staffing companies to fill highly technical vacancies, that the employers chose with whom they want to do business. The Johnson Group further argued that simply because the Johnson Group was able to make successful placements, in full and fair competition against Aerotek, that Aerotek could not reasonably support a case that any business loss was caused by The Johnson Group’s conduct. According to lead defense counsel, Carl Calnero, “The jury’s conclusion vindicated the Johnson Group’s position on this case from day one. Aerotek’s arrogant position that it owned its business relationships with its clients exclusively was wholeheartedly rejected. In this industry, the clients chose who they wanted to utilize for their staffing needs.”
In addition, Judge Brian Van Camp, who presided over the trial rejected Aerotek’s request for a permanent injunction wherein Aerotek alleged false advertising and unfair competition as a result of confidential internet postings – dubbed “ghost postings” by Aerotek, ruled that Aerotek had failed to meet its burden to establish any causal connection between the postings and any alleged harm to Aerotek or to any consumer. This issue was the subject of the previous Business Journal article wherein Aerotek suggested that postings of the nature routinely posted by The Johnson Group and other staffing agencies was confusing and unlawful.
In one portion of the jury trial, the jury determined that one of Aerotek’s ex-employees Michael Ponce breached the confidentiality clause of his former employment agreement with Aerotek, but only assessed $40,000 in damages. After nearly 3 years in litigation and approximately $1,000,000 spent by Aerotek in attorneys fees, this was at best a pyrrhic victory. It is furthermore, uncollectable against Mr. Ponce who is a social worker in southern California.
|
