Aerotek Staffing Agreement

Category: Allgemein

 Second, burton`s restriction under his employment contract with Aerotek „is reasonably related to the interest [Aeroteks]. If Burton had been placed directly at Storage Technologies as a direct employee of Storage Technologies from the outset, aerotek would have had to pay a 30% fee of Burton`s first annual salary under its standard agreement. The legal damages to Burton under its contractual terms amount to only about half of the eight-week work. Aerotek is active in recruiting, employing and providing staff services on a temporary or permanent basis for companies in the United States and, in particular, in the St. Louis, Missouri area. Aerotek has invested and continues to invest considerable resources to develop information, methods and techniques to identify organizations that use professional placement services to meet staffing needs; (b) identify the most important people responsible for recruiting professional agents in these institutions; (c) maintain, develop and maintain business relationships with these entities and individuals; (d) learn about the business and personnel needs of clients; (e) develop innovative solutions to meet the needs of customers in staff; (f) develop, review and retain highly qualified candidates for intermediation with their clients; and (g) set reasonable prices to attract and retain customers. The complainants claim that this information is valuable, confidential and the property of Aerotek, and is not known to all in the public. Aerotek and Beacon Hill are both active in the human resources sector and provide temporary and contract employees to work for clients or clients. They employ employees in the distribution of clients („Account Manager“) and in the recruitment of candidates to meet the needs of customers („Recruiter“). At Aerotek, Murphy was first recruited and promoted to account manager. He signed an agreement that, for a period of 18 months after the termination of employment, he agreed not to solicit or hire other Aerotek employees and not to compete with Aerotek in a new position in the human resources sector. This is a lawsuit that accuses Aerotek`s former employee, Murphy, and his current employer, Beacon Hill. Aerotek accuses Murphy of violating Murphy`s contract and respecting Missouri law.

The complainant also accuses Beacon Hill of atrocious interference and of continuing to intervene without a torso in Murphy`s employment contract by continuing to occupy Murphy. The evidence indicates that Southern Network Services did not order Burton to provide storage services to storage technologies in accordance with Aerotek`s agreement.