New Jersey Association of Justice
American Bar Association
National Employers Lawyers Association

Business Interference

 Business Interference

Our office has been successful in bringing affirmative claims against employers who overzealously attempt restrictive post-employment activities of employees or otherwise have no legal right to interfere with an employee’s post-termination pursuit of employment.

One potential claim available against an employer who attempts to interfere with an employee’s post-termination employment or business activities is a claim for tortious interference of prospective economic advantage or tortious interference of a contract. New Jersey law prohibits a person or entity from tortiously interfering with another’s employment or business and will provide legal protection of an existing or prospective contractual relationship from undue outside interference. A claim of tortious involves interference with contractual relations and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage are similar torts with the primary differences being that tortious interference with contractual relations interference with an existing contract, whereas tortious interference with prospective economic advantage requires only interference of a protectable interest.

The law against tortious business interference is designed to protect the luring of employment or business opportunity of another by devious, improper or unrighteous means. The law protects a person in his or her pursuit of a livelihood. While an individual or business cannot complain of legitimate competition from another, the law protects those who fall victim to illegitimate acts of overreaching or of other conduct that is below the standard of fairness.

In order to prove a claim of business interference, an employee must prove five elements. First, an employee must show that he or she had a prospective economic or contractual relationship giving rise to a reasonable expectation or economic advantage. This requires that the aggrieved person not only has a reasonable expectation of economic advantage, but also that he or she was in the pursuit of business or employment. Second, an employee must show the former employer knew of his or her employment. Third, the employee must show that the interference of the former employer was done intentionally and with malice. The term “malice” is not used in the literal sense requiring ill will toward the employee, but instead, means that the harm was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse. Fourth, an employee must demonstrate the interference caused the loss of the prospective economic gain or contract. The termination of employment or temporary suspension until the dispute is resolved will likely suffice to proving this element of the cause of action. The fight and final element is the injury caused by the damage. This is proven if the prior employer’s actions caused the new employer to terminate or suspend the employee’s new employment.

Our New Jersey employment lawyers have successfully litigated claims of tortious business interference against employers for maliciously enforcing post-termination restrictions against the former employee in their new employment. If you believe a former employer has unjustly interfered with your new or prospective employment, please call one of our business interference lawyers to discuss the specific facts and circumstances of your situation.

DISCLAIMER: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Client Reviews
We had a wrongful termination issue combined with a denial of unemployment insurance. Chris Eibeler was our primary attorney. His partner Bob Smith also consulted and gave us good advice. They were both so kind, caring, and professional. They guided us though a very tough time and a positive outcome versus a prior employer. They were also able to reverse our denial of unemployment insurance. I cannot recommend Smith and Eibeler highly enough. The entire staff is very professional, personable, and caring. Tom Wilson
I went to Smith Eibeler LLC for a last minute unemployment matter. Chris, Diane and his staff were very professional and easy to talk to. They provided knowledgeable insight and also kept me in the loop with the what was happening. I would not hesitate to go to him again. John Jung
Chris Eibeler (and the whole team) is very knowledgeable in all aspects of employment/unemployment here in NJ. They break down the most difficult aspects of the law, which allows you to conceptualize and better understand the complexities of the NJ Labor & Employment system. Smith Eibeler should be your first call regarding any Employment, workforce, or Labor questions here in New Jersey. I highly recommend them. Brian Allen
I approached Chris Eibeler regarding an unemployment case in early 2016. Him and his staff are some of the most professional people I have ever dealt with. The process took a while, but his approach to hard questioning helped me win my case. He knows how to get the job done and I am glad I went to him. I would recommend him to anyone in the future who asks for a lawyer. Thank you Chris! Tim F.
I highly recommend the office of Smith Eibeler for employment related issues, particularly anything related to restrictive covenants or post-employment contracts. I found Smith Eibeler via the web and cannot believe how fortunate I am to have found them. My case was handled by Bob Smith who represented me in a potential lawsuit by my former employer for violation of a post-employment contract (not a restrictive covenant per se). Bob was professional, friendly, understanding, and above all extremely helpful. Bob helped me avoid a lawsuit and was extremely knowledgeable in this field. I was thoroughly impressed with his prowess. Hopefully I will never have a legal issue related to employment again, but if I do, I will not hesitate to retain Smith Eibeler again! Gavin Tully

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.