WAG Chow files a lawsuit

[JBS]

Here is an interesting article...

http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2011/01...ers-non-compete-agreement-is-too-restrictive/

I hate non-compete agreements...but this one (Chow's) seems like fairly reasonable terms.

 

[gymdog]

Well there you go...but the question Chow has to ask himself is "why are they leaving me and what aren't they getting here?"

Having been in a "National Team Training Center" during an Olympic cycle (and having removed my Level 10 daughter from said gym during that time) , I can tell you that the HC of that gym was NEVER THERE and I was paying (through the nose ) for the HC's coaching , and it wasn't happening bc we were told "it's the Olympics so don't be selfish and think we are going to coach 10s when we have a potential to go to London" ...and they didn't coach the 10s, nor did anyone of a similar calibre coach them ( the mom at the desk does not equal Level 10 coach) so I pulled them...and I suspect this scenario is what is happening at Chow's...he's probably at the Ranch a week a month, and other times off with his elites (Pac Rims, Worlds etc) , leaving zero time to coach the 10s he has there who aren't doing elite...it's expensive and if the product isn't there , adios

Well when Mike Durante was around, he didn't really claim to be mainly coaching the 10s. That was Durante's job and he is a great coach. But he left and is now at a gym in San Antonio. I would imagine Chow was coaching the 10s some of the time but with his elite group I think it would be hard. Especially since he is not a very young man anymore. I wouldn't fault him for that but Durante leaving would have likely made a dent even if he found another great coach immediately or coached then himself full time. Whenever a head coach leaves it's generally inevitable some people will leave because they won't adjust.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

not exactly Midwestmommy. if it is found that this coach solicited kids away to the new gym which financially benefited the new gym, then the new gym is liable for hiring her. if the new gym did anything whether alone, or in collusion (conspiracy) with this coach to "induce" others to come over this would be a breach of fiduciary duty owed to Chow.

contract or not, a coach/independent contractor/employee/consultant has a fiduciary duty to the gym/business. if a coach were to violate certain civil statutes like "solicitation" or "inducement" (which could be taking place between the coach and the new gym to entice those to "come over") or steal gym records or phone numbers and emails, etc; then both coach and new gym will be in a fix.

don't be surprised if the new gym "settles" this and pays Chow off and the coach will remain where she is. happens all the time in our industry. where there is smoke...

in fact, the only other legal remedy will be for the new gym to cut her loose. and i believe that the Judge will enforce the "area" portion of the contract to within so many miles of Chow. the Judge will have to decide based on case law if the "area" that could be enforced would be too "restrictive" in order for the coach to coach within a reasonable area.

if this coach has to travel 100 miles to ply her trade? i don't think that will fly with the Judge. 50 miles? maybe. 25 miles? i think so.

 

[gasrgoose]

not exactly Midwestmommy. if it is found that this coach solicited kids away to the new gym which financially benefited the new gym, then the new gym is liable for hiring her. if the new gym did anything whether alone, or in collusion (conspiracy) with this coach to "induce" others to come over this would be a breach of fiduciary duty owed to Chow.

contract or not, a coach/independent contractor/employee/consultant has a fiduciary duty to the gym/business. if a coach were to violate certain civil statutes like "solicitation" or "inducement" (which could be taking place between the coach and the new gym to entice those to "come over") or steal gym records or phone numbers and emails, etc; then both coach and new gym will be in a fix.

don't be surprised if the new gym "settles" this and pays Chow off and the coach will remain where she is. happens all the time in our industry. where there is smoke...

in fact, the only other legal remedy will be for the new gym to cut her loose. and i believe that the Judge will enforce the "area" portion of the contract to within so many miles of Chow. the Judge will have to decide based on case law if the "area" that could be enforced would be too "restrictive" in order for the coach to coach within a reasonable area.

if this coach has to travel 100 miles to ply her trade? i don't think that will fly with the Judge. 50 miles? maybe. 25 miles? i think so.

Maybe Chow sued the gym to gain more exposure and pressure them into something. But the gyms obvious defense will be "the noncompete is between Chow and the coach". They just hired a coach. Collusion and conspiracy are very difficult to prove.

How would the other gym wouldn't have any fiduciary duty to Chow, they are his competitor?

Is there a civil statute against solicitation of new business? Solicitation could have been stated in the non compete, but again that would be between Chow and the coach, not the other gym.

 

[Midwestmommy]

Dunno--I didn't say there was no liability. I said there was no breach of contract between the two gyms. You are saying pretty much what I did-- that it's in between the lines. Noncompetes are usually about former employees not taking away business. Which is what you are saying this is about. Noncompetes are hard to enforce, but sometimes it's doable. But even when not prevailing in a drawn-out litigation, socking a bunch of legal costs on a coach and on a gym may be a method in acheiving their goal (their goal may be settling and dissuading other folks/punishment/adverse financial consequences to the competitor/seeking some financial compensation for damages, whatever). I was basically saying the same thing you were. One gym has no fiduciary duty to another gym. That doesn't mean they couldn't have some liability. Some key employees may owe their employer more loyalty than regular employees, and this would be what creates their fiduciary duty to the employer (or former employer), therefore the non compete agreements with their non-competition and non-solicitation clauses. The ones who end up buying the new car? Usually the lawyers.

 

[wallinbl]

How would the other gym wouldn't have any fiduciary duty to Chow, they are his competitor?

Is there a civil statute against solicitation of new business? Solicitation could have been stated in the non compete, but again that would be between Chow and the coach, not the other gym.

It may be that the gymnasts all voluntarily followed the coach with no inducement whatsoever. In that case, Chow has no argument. If there was simply a zip code based mailer or local TV advertisement or even a billboard right next to Chow's gym, Chow has no argument. However, if the new gym (or the coach) contacted these parents/gymnasts based on them being gymnasts at Chow's (the coach's former gym), or worse, the coach used contact information obtained while working at Chow's, then the new gym is going to lose and is going to owe Chow money.

Using customer lists or any aspect of your former employer's property (physical or intellectual) to solicit customers to your new business will often result in losing a legal battle.

 

[bookworm]

When we first went to the National Team Training Center gym, we had to sign a paper saying specifically that the gym or any of its coaches or employees had not recruited us...

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Maybe Chow sued the gym to gain more exposure and pressure them into something. But the gyms obvious defense will be "the noncompete is between Chow and the coach". They just hired a coach. Collusion and conspiracy are very difficult to prove.

How would the other gym wouldn't have any fiduciary duty to Chow, they are his competitor?

Is there a civil statute against solicitation of new business? Solicitation could have been stated in the non compete, but again that would be between Chow and the coach, not the other gym.

let me clarify (and Midwestmom also)

if the new gym had knowledge that this coach had a non-compete, and the new gym has knowledge that solicitation took place, that this solicitation/inducement was conspired with the coach, etc; then the coach and the new gym have a problem. the coach in their breach and the new gym in the conspiracy. i doubt this is what took place.

the allegation is that when this coach left, she took/stole a "secret sauce" with her. the secret sauce being how to teach gymnastics. THIS will never fly. it's been challenged before. gymnastics is universal. there is no ancient secret just as there is no ancient Chinese secret as well.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

by the way, your inbox is full. tried to PM you.

 

[thepenguin]

The coach is the mom of a level nine there.
She used to own a gym in Kansas. Mike Durante coaches at Aerial Athletics now.

 

[bogwoppit]

by the way, your inbox is full. tried to PM you.

Fixed it @dunno . I need some more PM's, guess I need to upgrade eh @JBS

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Surely Staff should have unlimited access, pm's etc to do their job !

 

[JBS]

Fixed it @dunno . I need some more PM's, guess I need to upgrade eh @JBS

You should be good now...take a look and let me know.

 

[bogwoppit]

You should be good now...take a look and let me know.

Yes indeed. Thank you.

 

[gymnerd]

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the five L9/10's that left Chow's for Triad at the exact same time?

@Becauseisaid why "Good on Chow for attempting it."

The coach was a recreational gymnastics and dance coach. She did not coach team or Level 10 nor did she even work in the same building as Chow, which makes the claim of trade secrets even more implausible. The article states that coaches are "exposed" to his special methods on a "need to know basis"... Chow would have to prove irreparable harm and he seems to be doing pretty well for himself as far as I can tell. He is a big name who continues to receive press now that Gabby is back. Meanwhile, the reputation of this coach suffers as a result of this article.

The L10 girls that left Chow's did so before the coach left. How is that soliciting them to join a competitor? When Mike Durante left he was replaced with Jesus Vasquez. Here is his resume: http://www.resumebucket.com/jesusvazquez319 for those that are curious. Maybe these parents and gymnasts weren't satisfied with Mr. Vasquez coaching. If I were to uproot my family and spend thousands for coaching by Chow I would expect that promise to be met. One of Chow's L10 gymnasts Gracie Day left well before the other Level 10's and went back to Texas. She is currently being coached by Mike Durante.

This begs the question... why did Durante leave Chow's and go back to Tx? Why did Chow selectively enforce this non-compete against a rec coach and not against the other higher level coaches that have left and currently coach in the area? I believe that Jesus Vasquez left Chow's... I wonder if he is still coaching?

 

[GymGirl's Mom]

contract or not, a coach/independent contractor/employee/consultant has a fiduciary duty to the gym/business. if a coach were to violate certain civil statutes like "solicitation" or "inducement" (which could be taking place between the coach and the new gym to entice those to "come over") or steal gym records or phone numbers and emails, etc; then both coach and new gym will be in a fix.

don't be surprised if the new gym "settles" this and pays Chow off and the coach will remain where she is. happens all the time in our industry. where there is smoke...

THIS happens all the time in businesses that have you sign a non-compete upon hire. I suspect a settlement will be made- in or out of court.

 

[gymnerd]

I don't believe non-competes are common in the gymnastics industry. I was forced to sign a non-compete in a different industry but that should not preclude me from making a living and I would fight it if it did. My non-compete is way too broad and I believe this one is too. The burden of proof should be on the plaintiff.

This is goliath vs. david and I will be surprised if goliath wins. It still begs the question why other coaches like Durante left Chow's employ in spite of their non-compete agreements. And more importantly, why aren't the other coaches being sued?

 

[gymmomx2]

It still begs the question why other coaches like Durante left Chow's employ in spite of their non-compete agreements. And more importantly, why aren't the other coaches being sued?

It's possibly because the other coaches left for other gyms that aren't in the vicinity of Chow's.

 

[gymnerd]

Hmm, surely not everyone who has left relocated to another state to coach gymnastics.

 

[gymmomx2]

Hmm, surely not everyone who has left relocated to another state to coach gymnastics.

sorry, I didn't catch that she was a rec coach who wasn't even working in the same building. It doesn't say so in the article. How do you know this?