Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer required an existing at-will employee to sign a non-compete agreement to keep his job. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the employer’s forbearance from firing the employee constituted sufficient consideration to form a valid contract.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that continued at-will employment is sufficient consideration to support a noncompetition agreement entered into after employment has begun. The employer’s forbearance from exercising its right to terminate the employee constitutes a legal detriment.
Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Lee Columber began working for Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC (“Lake Land”) in 1988 under an at-will employment arrangement. In 1991, three years after his employment began, Lake Land presented Columber with a noncompetition agreement, which he signed. The agreement stipulated that for three years following termination, Columber would not compete with Lake Land within a 50-mile radius. Columber received no new benefits, such as a raise, promotion, or change in job duties, in exchange for signing the agreement; his at-will employment simply continued. The employment relationship continued for another ten years until 2001. After his employment ended, Columber formed a competing business. Lake Land sued to enforce the noncompetition agreement. Columber moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as he received nothing new in exchange for his promise not to compete. The trial court and court of appeals agreed with Columber, finding no consideration.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an employer’s forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee sufficient consideration to support a noncompetition agreement presented after the employment relationship has commenced?
Yes. The noncompetition agreement is not void for lack of consideration. An Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is an employer’s forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee sufficient consideration to support a noncompetition agreement presented after the employment relationship has commenced?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies that forbearance from exercising the right to terminate an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
Legal Rule
Consideration exists to support a noncompetition agreement when, in exchange for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Legal Analysis
The Ohio Supreme Court analyzed the issue through the fundamental principles of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer’s forbearance from terminating an at-will employee is sufficient consideration