Submission

Steve Ward worked at Taser International as vice president of marketing when he began to explore the possibility of developing and marketing stun-gun devices of his own design. After he resigned from Taser, Ward formed a new business to market and sell his new product. Taser then filed a suit in an Arizona state court against Ward, alleging that he had breached his duty of loyalty to Taser. The court granted Taser's motion for a summary judgment in the employer's favor. Ward appealed.

A state intermediate appellate court agreed with Taser that an employee may not actively compete with his employer before his employment is terminated. But the parties disputed the extent of Ward's pre-termination efforts, creating a genuine issue of material fact that could not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. The appellate court thus reversed the lower court's decision in Taser's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings.

..................................................................................................................................................

Short of resigning his employment based on no more than a desire to work for himself, could Ward have taken any steps towards starting his own firm without breaching his duty of loyalty?

Why was it unclear whether Ward's pretermination actions constituted direct competition with his employer or were mere planning activities?

If the judgment in the case of remand is again in Taser's favor, what might be an appropriate remedy