Opinion ID: 1796752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the verdict was contradictory to the law

Text: Thompson contends that an employee cannot work for two employers, where one job places the employee as a competitor of the other employer. However, Thompson's argument is flawed because it confuses the consulting agreement with an employer/employee relationship. Wallace agreed to continue his relationship with Thompson Machinery as a consultant and not as an employee. His affiliation with Barton Equipment, therefore, can hardly be construed as a breach of the consulting contract. The Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines consult as to work or serve as a consultant: a retired executive who consults for several large companies.  Wallace's oral agreement with Thompson Machinery, as memorialized in his letter of resignation, provided that Per our agreement, I will remain with you for six months in a consulting capacity at the gross rate of pay that existed prior to my resignation. (emphasis added). Thompson's announcement of Wallace's departure reiterates his understanding of the meaning of the agreement, stating in relevant part: I regret to announce that Steve Wallace has elected to resign as President of Thompson Machinery of Mississippi. Steve will be pursuing another opportunity but has agreed to remain with us for six months in a consulting capacity. ... Although we are sorry to see Steve leave us, I know you will want to join me in wishing him the best of luck with his future endeavors. (emphasis added). Wallace had resigned from the company and was serving only in a consulting capacity. There was no employer/employee or master/servant relationship for Wallace to breach. Based on the facts, the jury made a proper determination regarding the existence of such a relationship. Although the record reveals little about the specific terms of the oral agreement between Wallace and Thompson Machinery, the highlighted sections of the above referenced correspondence indicate that both parties understood that Wallace had resigned from his position with Thompson, that he would continue to serve in a consulting capacity for six months, and that he was immediately pursuing a new business opportunity. There is no indication that he entered any agreement, orally or otherwise, not to compete with Thompson Machinery. In ACI Chemicals, Inc. v. Metaplex, Inc., 615 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1993), where two former employees of ACI had refused to sign non-competition agreements, we acknowledged that absent such an agreement, an individual was free to compete with a former employer as long as none of the former employer's trade secrets were violated. So finding, we stated: Absent a covenant not to compete, it is not wrongful for an employee to terminate his employment and accept a position with a competitor, unless, of course, the latter lures him away for the purpose of acquiring a trade secret. An employee, upon the termination of his employment, is free to draw upon his general knowledge, experience, memory and skill, howsoever gained, provided he does not use, disclose or impinge upon any of the secret processes or business secrets of his former employer. This rather piously oversimplified principle is much easier to state than to apply. ACI Chemicals, 615 So.2d at 1195 (citation omitted). Thus, Wallace, having terminated his employment with Thompson and having not entered a non-competition agreement, was free to pursue his new endeavors. He was a consultant and not an employee. As to this assignment of error, we affirm the trial court's decision.