This article discusses a case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court involved two reimbursement companies and an employee, David Friedlen. Friedlen was pressured into signing a non-compete clause for Runzheimer and then fired two years after signing. He then took a similar position at Corporate Reimbursement Services. Runzheimer filed a law suit against their former employee Friedlen and Corporate Reimbursement Services over weather consideration to continued employment is considered to continue a non-compete clause. Frindlen, although pressured into signing the clause, though that he would have the job with Runzheimer for the entirety of his career and found no fault in breaking the clause, after fired from the company. This suit became a big issue in Wisconsin because the Wisconsin law was unclear on how to solve the issue. During the case, Runzheimer argued that in the courts there should be no difference in how courts treat non-compete arguments that are signed at the beginning of employment and non-compete clauses that are signed years into employment. In rebuttal, Friedlen argued that the detriments and benefits when signing a legal document was not considered when he was pressured into signing the non-compete clause and the consideration for additional employment was not considered. Runzheimer states that at the time of having Friedlen signing the non-compete clause they did not have plans to fire Friedlen. One outcome of this case is the implement a good faith standard between employees and employer. By having a good faith standard, employers cannot use upper hand bargaining to coerce employees.
