Oregon Psychiatric Partners, LLP v. Henry

ORS 653.295(1) provides that a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee “is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless” five criteria are met. The five criteria require that the agreement was presented in a certain manner and timeframe, the employee is a person described in ORS 653.020(3), the employer has a protectable interest, the employee’s salary exceeds a certain threshold, and the employer took certain action within 30 days after the employment termination date.

On remand after the first appeal, Plaintiff asserted that the trial court erred in considering the enforceability of the noncompetition provision and the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff instead of the defendant. Plaintiff argued that because the defendant withdrew the affirmative defense under ORS 653.295 at trial the court should not have considered ORS 653.295. Defendant argued that the statements made at trial were not intended or understood to take the customer issue out of the case. ORS 653.295(1) provides that a noncompetition agreement between an employer and an employee “is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless” five criteria are met. Those five criteria require that the agreement was presented in a certain manner and timeframe, the employee is a person described in ORS 653.020(3), the employer has a protectable interest, the employee’s salary exceeds a certain threshold, and the employer took certain action within 30 days after the employment termination date. The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. It was plaintiff’s burden to prove that the patients in dispute were “customers.” Additionally, the Court found that if the plaintiff was confused about the defendant’s defense, then they should have objected during trial to secure a ruling. Affirmed.