Court Opinion

ID: 9796950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:09:05.59198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:50.208310
License: Public Domain

Judge TERRY
specially concurring.
I concur in the result and analysis of the majority opinion. I write separately to bring attention to an issue, not resolved by this decision, that will likely result in future litigation.
We resolve this appeal primarily by focusing on whether Dowell was “staff to executive and management personnel.” We do not decide one of the main issues briefed by the parties, namely, what kind of employees qualify as “professional staff.” We conclude that “the accepted meaning of the term ‘professional’ is ... broader than simply a member of a ‘learned profession,’” and that, by dint of education or experience, a person may be considered a “professional.”
Here, it was not necessary to decide conclusively whether Dowell was a “professional,” because he was not “staff to executive and management personnel.” However, not every case can be resolved on this basis. There could arise instances in which an employee would qualify as “staff to executive and management personnel” because he or she primarily serves as a key member of the manager’s or executive’s staff in the implementation of management or executive functions, but where there would be a legitimate question as to whether the employee was “professional staff.”
The lack of statutory definition of the term “professional staff’ thus presents a problem that will likely arise in future litigation. Because (1) noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements are in wide circulation in business, (2) expensive litigation concerning such issues is a significant risk for both employers and employees, and (3) such agreements could impede an employee’s ability to work and earn a living in future employment, I commend this issue to the attention of the General Assembly.