Court Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Wyoming,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 45 No. 3 Pg. 52 |
| Pages | 52 |
| Publication year | 2022 |
Anna Reeves Olson, Park Street Law Offices Casper, Wyoming
Charlene Hassler v. Circle C Resources S-21-0132 2022 WY 42 February 25, 2022
Circle C provides day and residential habilitation services to disabled clients in Natrona and Converse counties, but it is also authorized to provide services in Fremont, Weston, Laramie, Johnson and Campbell counties.
In 2015, Circle C hired Charlene Hassler, a CNA, to provide residential habilitation care in her home for one of its long-term adult clients (Client). At the time of her hire, Hassler signed Circle C's "Confidentiality and Noncompetition Agreement," which provided that during and for 24 months after the end of Ms. Has-sler's employment, she would not compete with Circle C in Natrona, Converse, Fremont, Weston, Laramie, Johnson and Campbell Counties.
Circle C trained Hassler for one month before Client moved into her home. Client required full-time habilitation care. Later, Client's mother, who was her legal guardian, became dissatisfied with Circle C and decided to find another provider. In 2017, Circle C was notified that Client was changing providers and Hassler was leaving its employ. However, Client remained in Hassler's home for care.
Circle C filed a complaint against Hassler for breach of the noncompete agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Circle C and held that the noncompete agreement was reasonable and enforceable if the geographical area subject to restriction was narrowed to include only Natrona and Converse counties and the duration of the restriction was changed from 24 to 12 months. Applying the blue pencil rule, the district court narrowed the restrictions and awarded damages.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and noted that in Wyoming, competent parties have the right to freely contract; however, contracts contrary to public policy are not "recognized by the court." It also noted that when courts encounter unenforceable restrictions on trade, there are three approaches to review them: (1) the "all or nothing" approach, which voids the restrictive covenant entirely if any part is unenforceable, (2) the "blue pencil" approach, which enables the court to enforce the reasonable terms provided the covenant remains grammatically coherent once its unreasonable provisions are excised, and (3) the liberal blue pencil approach, which reforms and enforces the restrictive covenant to the extent it is reasonable, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or on the part of the employer.
Although the Court recognized that in Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1993), Wyoming had adopted the liberal blue pencil rule, in this case, the Court overruled Hopper and held that a noncompete agreement that unreasonably restricts trade violates public policy and is invalid. Here, because the duration and geographical terms of Circle C's agreement were unreasonable, the noncompete was void and Hassler was entitled to judgment in her favor.
In the Interest of: MA, KA and GA, minor children, JR, v. State of Wyoming S-21-0151 2022 WY 29 February 28, 2022
JR (Mother) had three children with MA (Father). The family had primarily lived in Upton, but due to Father's domestic abuse, Mother and the children moved back and forth between Upton and South Dakota. Just prior to the proceedings, Mother was living in South Dakota and the children were in Upton with Father.
In February 2019, police took the children into protective custody. The State then filed a neglect petition against Mother and Father. Mother and Father denied the neglect allegations, and Father expressed a desire to give up custody to Mother. The GAL recommended that the children be placed with Father's parents "for...
To continue reading
Request your trial