Ramey & Hailey, Attorneys at Law Rated by Super lawyers The Best Lawyers in America TAOS Injury Lawyers
Free Initial Consultation Handset 317.582.0000
August 31 - Newsblog #1
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Homeowner and Wife Sue over Police Shooting
September 7 - Newsblog #2
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Homeowner’s Possession of Handgun Legal Under 2nd Amendment
September 14 - Newsblog #3
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: if a Government or Government Agency is at Fault, You Can Sue
September 21 - Newsblog #4
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Lawsuit Against Police Department Invokes the Civil Rights Act
September 28 - Newsblog #5
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: a Clear Line from the Action – or Inaction – to the Injury
October 12 - Newsblog #6
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Police Insensitivity Turns Traffic Stop into a Travesty
October 19 - Newsblog #7
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Police Who Abuse Power Must Be Held Accountable, Law Professor States
October 26 - Newsblog #8
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Holding Overly Aggressive Police Accountable
November 2 - Newsblog #9
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Brown Vs. Impd Case About Much More Than Punishment or Money
November 9 - Newsblog #10
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Improper Medical Diagnosis and Care Resulted in Loss of an Eye
November 16 - Newsblog #11
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Medical Malpractice Claims Have a Front End and a Back End
November 30 - Newsblog #12
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Truths About Medical Malpractice
December 7 - Newsblog #13
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Yes, You Can Sue City Hall
December 14 - Newsblog #14
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Slip and Fall Changes Two Lives Forever
December 28 - Newsblog #15
In the News: Ramey & Hailey Year in Review
January 4 - Newsblog #16
In the News: Teen’s Sexual Abuse Case Calls Attention to the Problem
January 11 - Newsblog #17
In the News: Parents of Survivor Sue Parents of Shooter
January 18 - Newsblog #18
In the News: Erin Brockovich Teams Up with Indiana Moms
January 25 - Newsblog #19
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Case Settled in Favor of Catastrophic Slip and Fall Injury Victim
January 31 - Newsblog #20
In the News: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Rehab Facility
February 8 - Newsblog #21
In the News: Nurse Arrested in Sexual Abuse Case
February 15 - Newsblog #22
In the News: Running the Clock on Indiana Medical Malpractice
February 22 - Newsblog #23
In the News: to Repeal or Not to Repeal – Indiana Legislators Rule “not”
March 1 - Newsblog #24
In the News: Helping Physicians Keep Helping
March 8 - Newsblog #25
In the News: Parents of Brain-damaged Infant Sue Hospital
March 15 - Newsblog #26
In the News: Owner of Gun Wins Decision
March 22 - Newsblog #27
In the News: Indiana House Passes Long Term Care Protections Bill
April 5 - Newsblog #28
In the News: Slip-and-fall Victim Wins Right to Sue Dollar Tree
April 12 - Newsblog #29
In the News: Inspection Report Shows Vets Harmed at 52 Nursing Homes
April 19 - Newsblog #30
In the News: Sandwich Diversion Causes Fatal Two-semitrailer Crash
April 26 - Newsblog #31
In the News: Does Premises Liability Cover Goose Attacks?
May 10 - Newsblog #32
Two-week-old N.y. Verdict Offers Takeaways for Slip and Fall Victims
May 17 - Newsblog #33
In the News: Barrel Blast Triggers Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Employment Newsletter

Employer Precautions When Sharing Trade Secrets

Generally, a “trade secret” is any valuable business information that is kept confidential in order to give the business a commercial advantage in the marketplace. Trade secrets are valuable forms of property and thus, the owner of the secret is entitled to certain rights of exclusion and protections from disclosure. Most states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in some form, which protects trade secrets from misappropriation, theft or disclosure without authorized consent. An individual, including a former employee, who knowingly infringes on a trade secret, may be held civilly and/or criminally liable to the owner.

Disclosing Trade Secrets to Employees

In order to qualify as a trade secret, the confidential business information must not be generally known and it must give that business an advantage over competitors. In addition, the owner of a trade secret must affirmatively act to ensure that the information remains confidential. Trade secrets can include formulas for a soft drink, recipes, customer lists and preferences of a product, patterns, processes, etc. Often, it is necessary for employers to disclose trade secrets to employees to enable them to perform their jobs. However, if the employee leaves the company to work for a competitor or to start a competing business of their own, they also leave equipped with that valuable information.

Protection Against Disclosure by Former Employees

In order to ensure that certain information qualifies and is protected as a trade secret, the owner of the secret must have initially acted in a manner which demonstrated their desire to keep the information confidential. Employers often solicit their employees to sign nondisclosure agreements (confidentiality agreements or NDAs) and/or covenants not to compete. These agreements create an express contractual duty of confidentiality by contract. However, employees generally have an implied duty not to disclose trade secrets regardless of such express agreements.

Employee Nondisclosure Agreements

NDAs are contracts between the employer and employee (or any two parties) whereby each agrees to maintain the subject matter of the contract in secrecy. A typical nondisclosure agreement includes the following:

  1. General definition of exactly what information is to be kept confidential;
  2. Exclusions from confidential information;
  3. Obligations of the party receiving the confidential information;
  4. Time periods for which the information must remain confidential; and
  5. Miscellaneous provisions.

Such agreements are not always necessary in the employment relationship, since their duty not to disclose confidential information is implied. However, in a case where an employee discloses a trade secret, the existence of an NDA is useful as evidence that the information was in fact meant to be kept confidential. Employers may require all new employees to sign nondisclosure agreements when they are hired.

Employee Noncompete Covenants

Under a covenant not to compete, an employee agrees not to work for a direct competitor or start a competitive business for a certain period of time after their employment terminates with the current company. These agreements effectively prevent former employees from disclosing trade secrets to competitors, or from using the information in their own competing business. To be enforceable, noncompete covenants must be reasonable. Generally, a non-compete covenants must not:

  • Be too long in duration;
  • Cover too wide of a geographic scope or area; and/or
  • Prohibit employees from engaging in too many types of businesses.

Although effective, noncompete covenants are not legal in every state. For example, California invalidates such agreements (except in limited circumstances) on the grounds of public policy since they restrain an individual’s right to earn a living.

Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

In a 1995 decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals effectuated the judicial doctrine of “inevitable disclosure” as an interpretation of Section 2 of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (threatened misappropriation). The inevitable disclosure doctrine enables a court to prevent a former employee of one company from working for a competitor in a comparable position, if the nature of the performance of the position would inevitably require the use or disclosure of trade secrets of the former employer.

This doctrine can apply where the employee signed an NDA, yet a noncompete covenant does not exist or is invalid. Also, where the court is hesitant to completely prevent the former employee from working for a competitor, the risk of inevitable disclosure might justify the court to prevent them from working on particular tasks. However, inevitable disclosure is only recognized in some, not all, jurisdictions.


In the event that there is an unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets by an employee, courts are authorized to order an injunction which prevents the information from further misappropriation. In addition, the infringing former employee may be liable for any damages resulting from actual losses suffered by the former employer and/or for the unjust enrichment of the new employer. Finally, in cases of willful misappropriation, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be awarded to the injured party.

The intentional theft of trade secrets is a crime under both federal law and the law of many states. Under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), the U.S. Attorney General has the power to criminally prosecute those involved in the intentional theft, copying or receiving of trade secrets. Fines of up to $500,000 for individuals or $5 million for corporations may be imposed, and all property used and proceeds received from the theft may be seized and sold by the government. Violators also face prison terms of up to ten years.

  • Construction Workers and Lead Exposure
    The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set forth a number of standards that govern a variety of issues related to the construction workplace. OSHA’s Lead Standard for the Construction Industry... Read more.
  • Publicly-Traded Corporations Face New Employment Regulations
    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act) became effective in July of 2002. The Act contains provisions that regulate the auditing and disclosure of corporate finances. Both public and private corporations may also be affected by the Act in... Read more.
  • The PERM System for Obtaining Labor Certification
    One avenue that allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the U.S. entails a “permanent labor certification” through the Federal Department of Labor (DOL). Before the employer can submit a petition... Read more.
  • Definition of Disability Expanded under the ADAAA
    On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law, to be effective as of January 1, 2009. Congress first passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. The ADA outlawed... Read more.
Employment News Links
Designed and Powered by NextClient

© 2014 - 2019 Ramey & Hailey, Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved.
Custom WebExpress™ attorney website design by NextClient.com.