Shana Hiatt Granted Injunction Against Wpt

[mcpickl 0]

How dare she file suit against the WPT!!!!She's going to ruin poker!!!

[theresa113 0]

OK... I removed the links buddies. Guys, please do not put direct links. This was a pain to remove. I think Shana is a beautiful woman but please remember, this is a business site. Thanks for the help.

[mr_english 0]

OK... I removed the links buddies. Guys, please do not put direct links. This was a pain to remove. I think Shana is a beautiful woman but please remember, this is a business site. Thanks for the help.

And lets not forget that some of us are looking while at work and clicking on those links could cost us our jobs.And then I found this,The complaint goes on to assert that upon finding out about NBC's advances, WPTE CEO Steve Lipscomb contacted NBC executives, and informed them that even though Hiatt was no longer shooting episodes of the World Poker Tour, she was still under contract to the WPT as part of a non-compete clause in her contract. The complaint alleges the non-compete was part of Shana's release from the WPT, a document the lawsuit claims Hiatt never signed. The complaint also asserts WPT options on Hiatt's services expired on September 11, 2006, and she should be free to seek work wherever she likes. The suit seeks immediate injunctive relief, allowing Shana to seek employment as a TV hostess for NBC (or anyone for that matter). The initial hearing for the matter is scheduled for October 17th. Interestingly enough, the suit also claims that Hiatt left the show because the WPT created a 'hostile working environment' in the Spring of 2005 by several people around the WPT (probably the unnamed 'Does' named in the suit) spreading rumors about Hiatt, and her husband.

[XA_kid 0]

I think that this is pretty damning of the WPT. I can't understand why they would even want a non-compete contract for Hiatt after their option runs out. What trade secrets would she be sharing?"So that's how they show the cards, they have a CAMERA under the table!"The only reason I could understand is that they recognize the value of Hiatt as a host in attracting viewers and they don't want to give someone else that edge. Of course, if they really wanted to keep her, they would have treated her better to convince her to stay.It's America, and people should have the right to work where they please.

[schnoodle_C 0]

To those following this story: It should be noted that California has very strict pro-employee/contractor laws that do not acknowledge most non-compete clauses that do not involve the sale of a business.

[mushu 0]

I'd still like to hear from Master Daniel regarding all of this. Please speak Up Master Daniel. Where are you?

So what do you guys think about this...http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_...class=PokerNewspublished on: Friday Sep 22, 2006Former World Poker Tour Host Hiatt Takes ActionInjunction Granted on Hiatt's Behalf TodayOne of poker’s most well-known faces belongs not to a poker player, but to former Playboy model and World Poker Tour host Shana Hiatt. Despite finding success as poker’s best-known television hostess, Hiatt left the show after several seasons. Ironically, her departure from the WPT came just when many of the shows featuring her began to air around the globe. Her departure left many fans wondering when and if they would ever see this beautiful television personality again. Today, Hiatt took another step toward making it back to the poker television airwaves. According to an injunction granted this morning by a judge on the California Superior State Court in Los Angeles, the WPT can no longer keep the stunning hostess from pursuing two job opportunities at NBC. According to the complaint filed on Hiatt’s behalf by her lawyer Paul Sorrel of Lavely & Singer, Hiatt was in line to find work on NBC’s highly popular National Heads-Up Poker Championship and a new show called Poker After Dark.As described in today’s court documents, things were looking good for Hiatt’s return until August of 2006. It was at this point that Steve Lipscomb informed NBC that Hiatt could not work for the network due to a noncompete clause in her contract with the WPT. Judge Linda K. Lefkowitz, however, disagreed with Lipscomb’s claims, granting today’s injunction on Hiatt’s behalf. According to the judge’s decision, the injunction now stops the WPT from “seeking to prevent or prohibit Plaintiff (Hiatt) from seeking employment with NBC in connection with appearances in two poker-themed television shows by claiming or asserting the existence of a noncompetitive or other exclusivity agreement.” If Lipscomb and the WPT wish to pursue their claim about Hiatt’s contract and continue trying to block her from working, they now have to appear in a Santa Monica courtroom and show why the injunction should not be enforced. Card Player spoke with Hiatt’s attorney about today’s decision. “It's unfortunate that the World Poker Tour is engaging in conduct that we believe is unlawful and in violation of Shana Hiatt’s right to appear on poker television programs. We intend to hold the World Poker Tour accountable for its actions,” Sorrell said.At the time of this writing, the World Poker Tour could not be reached for comment.

[AK33 0]

Let me assist Daniel on this one although I'm sure he doesn't need my help. In the business world, all businesses have the right to ask or, in some instances, require that their employees sign a non-compete agreement. This agreement has a great deal of value to the company and is meant to protect it from competition from employees who have garnered confidential information, such as client lists, secret formulas, other trade secrets, and other information from their employment with the company and no other reason.Here's a good example. X company hires Shana Hiatt as a chemist. She is asked to sign a non-compete and is given consideration for the agreement beyond just mere employment, say $1k. The non-compete will say that Shana cannot compete against X company in the same industry using confidential information, which may be detailed in the agreement, without the written consent of X company. Competition can be defined as starting a company or working for another employer.So WPT has every right to ask an employee for a non-compete and its interests are valid in doing so. However, for you non-attorneys, non-competes are very difficult to draft correctly because the Courts and legislatures don't like them as they restrain trade, and keep productive individuals out of the workforce. Thus, I'm fairly sure that the WPT non-compete does not comply with the technical requirements of a valid non-compete. The more interesting question is this: What happens if Shana has lost opportunities for employment, would she be entitled to compensation from the WPT for its attempt to enforce an illegal non-compete?Peace out.

Close but not quite. What you are referring to is a confidentiality agreement, the issue here is a non-compete clause that is usually in place to protect company IP or intellectual property. This basically restricts employees from going to work for competing companies because of "trade secrets," no other reason. However these agreements are being overruled more and more because companies restrict far too much. The argument is ussually that the agreement restricts an emplyee from his/her livelihood. However I don't see how hosting a show has anything to do with company secrets, hosting is hosting, this agreement is rediculous from my point of view.

[NoSup4U 0]

How dare she file suit against the WPT!!!!She's going to ruin poker!!!

nh

[El Guapo 8]

Most non-compete clauses have a time limit on them. To use one of the posters examples, if someone is working for a bio-tech company working on a new drug, they may sign a non-compete saying if they leave before the patent is secured they cannot go to/start their own and do the same thing. Or a sales manager may not be able to go after his former clients with another firm for two years. But a non-compete with no end date should be overturned.

[Canuckickstan 2]

This thread will die a slow death without more pictures...

[SpiderGuard 0]

Close but not quite. What you are referring to is a confidentiality agreement, the issue here is a non-compete clause that is usually in place to protect company IP or intellectual property. This basically restricts employees from going to work for competing companies because of "trade secrets," no other reason. However these agreements are being overruled more and more because companies restrict far too much. The argument is ussually that the agreement restricts an emplyee from his/her livelihood. However I don't see how hosting a show has anything to do with company secrets, hosting is hosting, this agreement is rediculous from my point of view.

The non-compete clause is common in entertainment as well. Professional wrestling is a famous example of this, with a particularly restrictive noncompete clause. WWE makes all their wrestlers sign a non-compete clause because the WWE created and made a character and they don't want the wrestler taking that character and allowing another company to profit from that character. I would imagine something similar is in place with Shana Hiatt here.I don't agree with the noncompete clause, but don't miscast it as them trying to stop her from using proprietary information.

[IQCrash 1]

I'd grant her injunction.