Employee Stock Ownership as long as Employee Stays in the Company, What Kind of Nonsense is This? Recently a friend of mine has received a stock buy offer from its company. The company offered to sell a specific amount of the company shares with a nice discount rate, because he was in a critical and irreplacable position. Everything is fine up to this point. However, there is a ridiculous clause in the agreement: without any specific lime limit, if the employee quits job or the company fires him (event after 10 years), he will be required to, enforced to sell its shares back to company! Is such a clause legal or against the priciple of private ownership? or can this be called stock buy offer at all? I guess you did not see such a nonsense before. Thanks.
This is neither unusual nor illegal, assuming that the buyback price is specified in the agreement. If your friend does not wish to take advantage of the "nice discount" he can decline the deal, and decide for himself whether he wishes to buy shares without restriction, at the market rate. (It would be interesting to know what happens if he sells his shares and then leaves the company. I am fairly sure the agreement will cover this, but requiring an ex-employee to buy shares and then give them to the company could be considered unconscionable. That might be worth asking a lawyer about).
Can a significant change in incentives void an employment contract? Yes, because a party's unilateral, significant imposition which the counterparty did not expect strikes the premise of a contract/agreement being entered knowingly and willfully. Here, the contract or relevant portion thereof is voidable by the employee, because the employer's belated imposition is tantamount to a misrepresentation as contemplated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 164(1). The contract clause regarding an employee's off-work hours might be unenforceable as unconscionable, more so where the incentive being slashed represents a significant portion of an employee's income (since it reflects that the employee's salary is not that high so start with). See the Restatement at § 177, 178, and 208. is the employee entitled to any compensation or the right to retain the property? Yes, but the applicable alternative --compensation vs. withholding the IP-- depends on what agreement the employee reaches with the employer. I presume what prompts this part of your question is the mention --in the Workplace SE post-- that the engineer rejected the employer's bid (offer is somewhat of a misnomer) of $25,000 for the employee's off-work IP. The engineer's reluctance is rightfully cautious. Prior to accepting the employer's proposal, it is in the engineer's best interest to ensure (with enough specificity in a new contract) the terms and conditions of that proposal, lest the employer subsequently argue that the payment of $25,000 encompassed any and all subsequent IP produced by the employee during his employment there. Likewise, insufficient caution by the engineer regarding the aforementioned proposal may permit a finding that the parties' subsequent conduct reflects the engineer's acceptance of the new conditions (including the slashing of incentives).
The law is here (too long to quote, or understand). There is a proposed modification of the law which may be enacted. In the section Justification, it is noted that under the existing law a global corporation may technically &quot;own&quot; five subsidiary corporations. Company A may own a winery in France while Company D may own a hotel containing a restaurant in New York. Under New York Law, the liquor license for the restaurant would be prohibited - and it could be subject to financial penalties. So the restrictions are broader that you mention (ownership of stock is an &quot;interest&quot;), but certainly what you mention is prohibited. The proposed law limits the effect to an interest in a restaurant or brewery &quot;licensed under this chapter&quot;, i.e. in the state of New York (currently, a NY manufacturer cannot have an interest in an alcohol-selling restaurant anywhere).
An employee is an agent of the employer when working and owes a duty of loyalty to the employer. One of the obligations associated with a duty of loyalty is to refrain from receiving anything other than the employer authorized compensation for the work, rather than benefitting personally from work done on behalf of the employer. By appropriating additional benefit from the customer in a way that is unauthorized by the employer (the employer would be within its rights to sanction and authorize this conduct if desired), an employee who does not turn the profit in this transaction over to the employer has breached a fiduciary duty to the employer for which the employer would have a right to sue the employee for the amount by which the employee was unjustly enriched in the transaction. Would it actually play out this way in real life for these sums of money? Probably not. The stakes involved wouldn't justify the time and money of a lawsuit. But, breaching a fiduciary duty of loyalty to your employer in this context probably constitutes good cause to terminate the employment of the employee without paying severance that would otherwise be payable under Canadian employment law (in theory anyway, I've never seen a reported court case on point).
Based on the contract language quoted in the question, and the facts stated there, it would seem that the employee owns the copyright on the software. It would seem that the software was not created &quot;during the course of employment.&quot; However, when the employee offers it to the employer free of charge, the employer may well want to own the copyright and any other related IP. The employer might want the employee to sign an agreement transferring the copyright. Or the employer might simply treat the software as belonging to the employer. Asserting and enforcing the copyright against the employer might be difficult. Insisting on even a token payment would help establish thst the copyright belongs to the employee, or gettign the employer to sign an acknowledgement of the ewmployee's copyright would have a similar, bnt even stronger effect.
does the individual have a legal case against the company? Unfortunately, no. Some details and terms you use are unclear (e.g., "phantom" equity, "manifest" core technology, and so forth), but your overall description reflects that the individual sabotaged himself by signing a contract that does not mention the promise of equity through which he was persuaded to engage. A written contract usually supersedes any prior agreement --regarding the subject matter of that contract-- between the parties. That superseding effect means that the contract formalizes or overrides, accordingly, said agreements or promises. Since the initial promises of equity are not reflected in the "interim" contract, the investor's subsequent silence upon individual's reproach/reminders is from a legal standpoint irrelevant. At that point only the terms of the contract matter. The individual might consider alleging mistake in the sense of Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 151-154 such that would make the contract voidable and perhaps "make room" for other theories of law. However, that seems futile unless the interim contract contains language that (1) provides specific conditions for its expiration, or (2) reflects the company's [mis-]representations that induced the individual to sign it. Neither seems to have occurred in the situation you describe. There is always a possibility that the contract might favor the individual's position and he just has not noticed it. But the only way to ascertain that is by reading the contract itself.
I can't find any law that would prevent an employer from requiring this. Under current Florida law, an employer can even demand passwords and access to an employee's social media accounts. A bill was proposed to prohibit this, but it hasn't passed. Generally, an employer can require anything they want as a condition of employment, as long as it is not illegal. Florida has at-will employment so the employer could certainly fire the employee if they don't comply.
Yes, the employee can choose not to accept the contract offered at the end of the probationary period and thereby allow the probationary period to end without accepting a long-term position. This is usually called "quitting".