Mattison owned Hidden Hills Beauty Salon and hired Drowne as a hair stylist in 1982. In 1984, Drowne signed a contract agreeing not to work at any competing hair salon within one year of termination from Hidden Hills (known as a restrictive covenant contract). Over the next 10 months, Johnston, the owner of a competing beauty salon located one-half mile from Hidden Hills, actively solicited Drowne to leave Hidden Hills and work for his salon. Eventually, Drowne quit Hidden Hills and began working for Johnston. Mattison sued Johnston for intentional interference with the restrictive covenant contract.

Johnston claimed he was simply engaging in standard business competition and that it was Drowne’s individual choice to break her contract with Hidden Hills.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Who prevails and why? Are there conflicting public policy concerns in this case?

2. Why would Mattison sue Johnston for interference rather than suing Drowne for breach?