• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Lawsuit Filed Against WTVY FM 95.5 - Magic Broadcasting--$1,000,000

So she is upset that that Magic is holding her to her non-compete, citing keeping her from what she knows how to do to make a living. Yet she only worked ther 9 months???? What did she do before????
 
Stupid is as stupid does.... your first name must be Forrest instead of Pnut. Apparently you don't understand what this case is about... let me enlighten you- she is not upset that they are enforcing a non-compete, she didn't have ONE!!......Did you understand that part??? She was a member of the sales staff for 14 months not 9..boy would I love to be your accountant!! I am glad to see someone finally standing up to corporate management or "mismanagement"... Whoever is responsible for running that company should be looking for their next victim. Magic should realize the liability that comes with decisons made by someone who doesn't understand true management skills. Am I moving too fast for you??? Now, her employment contract originals were replaced with the pages that Magic decided they wanted to replace them with. Did you get that part??? Now, incase you were not aware, this is known as FRAUD. Forrest, this simplily means that the magic dress code when this case is over will consist of "black and white stripes!!" Oh, and don't forget the new janitors Guido & Benji who will be anxiously awaiting for the sound of the soap to hit the shower floor. Did you understand that part???
 
This is great! If she wins based on the fact that the State Legislature batted down non-competes years ago, every jock and salesperson that ever got canned or quit and was held to a non-compete can sue the station they were canned or quit from. Lawyers of the Wiregrass, rejoice! Your list of clients will be so long you'll have to hire extra help to process all the cases.
 
Several years ago in Auburn, the station I worked for had a non-compete issue with some new hires.
Tiger in Auburn hired two salespersons and an announcer from Kicker Country... They had non-competes...it went to court in Auburn I was told by one of the owners that the whole thing lasted only a couple of minutes... The judge read the complant and said if a person wanted to change jobs they could. The non-competes didn't hold up in court. I'd think that the lawyers in this case should check that case... it's already been done.

The thing about a non-compete in Alabama... I don't really think they hold any water, but the big companies like Clear Channel, Cumulus... they would send a lawyer to fight you. I believe you would win when you had your day in court...but you'd have to spend the money on a lawyer (which ain't cheap) in most cases it's better to let the non-compete just run out. It's a lot cheaper in the long run. Unless you got somebody that will represent you for a cut of the winnings. (if you sue)
 
smokersotd said:
the fact that the State Legislature batted down non-competes years ago

There are many variables as to whether or not a non-compete can hold up. There is no "striking down" of anything of the sort by the legislature. I challenge you to produce that information in detail to back up your statement.

Skipper! said:
Several years ago in Auburn, the station I worked for had a non-compete issue with some new hires.
Tiger in Auburn hired two salespersons and an announcer from Kicker Country... They had non-competes...it went to court in Auburn I was told by one of the owners that the whole thing lasted only a couple of minutes... The judge read the complant and said if a person wanted to change jobs they could. The non-competes didn't hold up in court. I'd think that the lawyers in this case should check that case... it's already been done.

The thing about a non-compete in Alabama... I don't really think they hold any water, but the big companies like Clear Channel, Cumulus... they would send a lawyer to fight you. I believe you would win when you had your day in court...but you'd have to spend the money on a lawyer (which ain't cheap) in most cases it's better to let the non-compete just run out. It's a lot cheaper in the long run. Unless you got somebody that will represent you for a cut of the winnings. (if you sue)

Non-competes HAVE been upheld very recently in Alabama... Paul Finebaum and Patty and Dollar Bill in Birmingham come to mind. Other times they have been struck down. It often depends on the judge hearing the case, the verbiage of the contract, and most importantly - when type (if any) of renumeration is paid in exchange for the non-compete. There's a reason why contract disputes wind up in court - because every situation is different, and every judge is going to make his own determination based on the facts of each individual case.
 
alabama is a right to work state.

a non-compete without financial arrangement while the affected party is off the air are null and void.

if the non-compete gives the personality full salary and compensation while off the air may be upheld, but that is at the discretion of the hearing judge.
 
State laws vary but check out the thread on the LA board on this subject.

For the record, don't like them, never have. I always thought non-competes were only a tool to try and keep salaries down and employees completely subservient.
 
The issue here is not whether non-competes are enforcible in Alabama. Ms. King's claim is that she never signed one. It would appear from what I've read so far that she clearly communicated her intention, both verbally and in writing that she would not be bound by a non-compete. The court filing alleges that Magic produced an altered agreement, which is clearly fraud. If the court cannot decide from the physical evidence (i.e. the two disparate "copies" of the agreement) it will come down to "he said, she said." When there is abbiguity, courts almost universally will give the benefit of the doubt to the employee and not the employer. If, indeed this case goes to trial and it's found that Magic doctored evidence, there would clearly be a case for criminal prosecution on the charges of perjury and evidence tampering. If Magic or their attorneys has the slightest doubt that "their" version of the contract is legitimate, they would be wise to get out their checkbook and settle before this goes to trial. The alternative might be a prolonged vacation at the Graybar Hotel.
 
Question: Who has the original document that she signed?
 
duncanalausa said:
alabama is a right to work state.

a non-compete without financial arrangement while the affected party is off the air are null and void.

if the non-compete gives the personality full salary and compensation while off the air may be upheld, but that is at the discretion of the hearing judge.

Right-to-work State means nothing of the sort. All the "right-to-work" laws do is provide that no one can be compelled to join a labor union to keep their job. That's it. Nothing whatsoever to do with comtracts, non-competes or anything else. I suggest you do a little digging to improve your legal knowledge. I'll give you a little sample to get you started. In a ruling from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Although noncompetition agreements are not favored, see Ala. Code 1975, § 8-1-1(a), an "employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a specified county, city, or part thereof so long as the. employer carries on a like business therein." Ala. Code 1975, § 8-1-1(b). Our courts, in interpreting that statute, have developed a test to determine whether a given noncompetition agreement is enforceable. A court will enforce a noncompetition agreement only if:

"(1) the employer has a protectable interest;

"(2) the restriction is reasonably related to that interest;

"(3) the restriction is reasonable in time and place;

"(4) the restriction imposes no undue hardship."


In this same ruling the court stipulated that specific geographic restrictions should be apart of all noncompetition agreements to be deemed enforceable.

Every radio station non-compete I've ever seen (and that's been quite a few) meets all of the above criteria including a geographic "radius" of enforceability.

Guess maybe you should call up the judges and tell them that since Alabama is a "right-to-work" State they must overturn their own rulings.
 
duncanalausa said:
[EDIT]
[EDIT-reference to deleted material]

Ah... the ultimate internet burn. Well played. And always played when you have nothing of substance to say in response.

The "google documents" happen to be actual rulings by the State Court of Appeals. They are a matter of public record, and they are the law of the State. I'm waiting for you to show me.

In fact, I have been involved in court action involving the contract of on on-air personality. I worked under such a contract for more than a decade, and as a Program Director was directly involved with our companies legal team in drafting and negotiating them. So yes, I have a little experience in this field.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom