Opinion ID: 779119
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tortious Interference With an Employment Relationship

Text: 42 ADR alleges that Agway tortiously interfered with its employment relationship with Goodman. Under Michigan law, as explained by this Court, the elements of a tortious interference claim are (1) a contract, (2) a breach, and (3) instigation of the breach without justification by the defendant. Tata Consultancy Servs. v. Sys. Int'l, Inc., 31 F.3d 416, 422 (6th Cir.1994) (quoting Jim-Bob, Inc. v. Mehling, 178 Mich.App. 71, 443 N.W.2d 451, 462 (1989)). In Tata, the Tata corporation solicited and hired computer programmers and technical workers from India to work in the United States and other countries. Tata, 31 F.3d at 417-18. The Tata employees were obliged to serve for three years, id. at 418, with some contractual modifications for employees traveling to the United States, id. at 419. Another company, Syntel, initiated a series of contacts with Tata employees encouraging them to leave Tata for Syntel. Id. at 418, 419, 420. Tata claimed tortious interference with its employment contracts; Syntel responded that it had simply made an employment offer, pursuant to its own business interests, and that such a business-based decision could not be without justification. We rejected Syntel's defense, finding that a desire to further one's own economic interests does not constitute justification for actively inducing another to violate his contractual undertakings. Id. at 424; see also id. at 427 (coming to the same conclusion after further survey of Michigan law). However, we did emphasize that to show instigation a plaintiff must typically produce some evidence of a defendant's active solicitation of a plaintiff's employee. See id. at 424-26. For example: 43 If an employee of Tata approached Syntel about a job, without having been solicited to do so by Syntel or anyone acting on its behalf, Syntel might well be justified in hiring the applicant whether or not his employment contract with Tata had expired. But if the approach came from Syntel — if Syntel sought out the Tata employee, in other words, and actively solicited him to come to work for Syntel knowing that the employee could not do so without breaking an existing contract with Tata — the hiring of the employee away from Tata might well be unjustified. Malice could be inferred from the wrongful act of inducing breach of the contract, and it would be no defense that Syntel acted not out of hatred or ill-will toward Tata, but solely in the interest of feathering its own economic nest at the expense of a competitor. 44 Id. at 425. 45 ADR argues that it has raised a genuine issue of material fact respecting whether Agway knew of a contractual relationship between ADR and Goodman and instigated a breach by Goodman without justification. Agway responds that Goodman was an at will employee for ADR when it hired him and hence Agway cannot meet even the first prong of the Tata test. Even if ADR could get past this hurdle, Agway contends, ADR has presented insufficient evidence to show that Agway instigated the breach. 46 We need not decide whether Goodman's contract was renewed or whether he was working at will at the time he left ADR for Agway, 3 because in either case ADR has not produced sufficient evidence to show that Agway actively solicited Goodman to sever the relationship. See id. at 424-26. Schalk testified that in late September [or] early October Goodman aggressively pursued employment opportunities with Agway. According to Schalk, Goodman presented an organizational chart for Agway with a new vice president position and claimed I'm your guy for that position. Only after discovering that Goodman was interested in working for Agway did Agway ask for a resume. An official offer of employment was not extended until October 27, 1998. 47 ADR attempts to weave together threads of circumstantial evidence to show that Agway solicited Goodman. It argues that the record demonstrates that Agway executives talked about a mutual interest in Goodman joining Agway, that they were pleased with his work, that they knew about the employment contract, that they had designated a role Goodman would play at Agway, and that they hired him without advising ADR and without consulting their own legal department. However, none of ADR's citations to the record impeach this basic chronology — that it was Goodman who first sought employment with Agway. There is no evidence that Agway communicated any employment possibilities to Goodman prior to Goodman's expressed interest in joining Agway. Absent such evidence of instigation, Agway's internal communications, without more, simply do not raise a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, we find that the district court did not err. See Tata, 31 F.3d at 427.