WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF RECRUITING OR HIRING AN EMPLOYEE WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (e.g., NON-COMPETE, NON-SOLICITATION, OR NON-DISCLOSURE)?
A. Old Employer Versus New Employer for Tortious Interference With the Restrictive Covenant Itself In Research and Trading Corp. v. Pfuhl, 1992 WL 345465 (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery for New Castle County set forth the elements of a cause of action for tortious interference: • a contract, • about which defendant knew, • an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, • without justification, • which causes injury. Research and Trading Corp. v. Pfuhl, supra, at *14. In Research and Trading Corp. v. Pfuhl, the old employer, Research and Trading Corp. (“RTC”), sued each of three ex-employees for tortiously interfering in the other two ex-employees’ restrictive covenants. RTC was engaged in the business of marketing safety devices designed to protect individuals required to work at heights, such as harnesses, body belts, and shock absorbing lanyards. The restrictive covenants prohibited selling or purchasing any products that competed with RTC’s
