I. [§ 3.126] Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

I. [§ 3.126] TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

George Harris Company induced James Wilson, a valuable employee of John Smith Inc., to discontinue his employment with John Smith, Inc. and obtain employment with George Harris Company. John Smith, Inc., outraged over the incident and realizing the great loss befalling it as a result of Wilson breaching an employment contract, instituted suit against Harris Company for tortious interference with contractual relations.

COMPLAINT

Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

John Smith, Inc. (hereinafter "Smith Inc."), Plaintiff, by its attorneys, John P. Ito and Ito & Ito, P.A., sues George Harris Company (hereinafter "Harris Company"), Defendant, and states:
1. Plaintiff, Smith Inc., is a corporation incorporated in the state of Maryland and is engaged in the business of selling computer software products throughout the United States. Its principal place of business is in Baltimore City, Maryland.
2. Defendant, Harris Company, is a corporation incorporated in the state of Maryland. Its principal business is the sale of computer software products throughout the East Coast of the United States from the state of Maine to the state of South Carolina.
3. On or about January 1, 2021, Smith Inc. employed James Wilson (hereinafter "Wilson") in the capacity of regional sales manager for its New England territory. Wilson entered into an employment contract with Smith, the duration of which was five (5) years. A copy of this Contract is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1.
4. By virtue of Wilson's position as regional sales manager, he occupied a key position in the corporation. His salary was in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), and his responsibilities were great. He reported directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the corporation, and he was one of Smith Inc.'s most valuable employees.
5. During the course of his employment, Wilson, in the spring of 2022, encountered representatives of Harris Company. Harris Company recognized the potential value of Wilson to its business and suggested to Wilson that Wilson consider leaving Smith Inc. to join Harris Company.
6. Wilson advised Harris Company of his existing contract with Smith Inc. and declined Harris Company's invitation.
7. Harris Company, nevertheless, throughout the summer of 2022 and the fall of 2022 persisted in soliciting Wilson to depart Smith Inc. to join Harris Company. Without legal justification, Harris Company

...