Tortious Interference with Business Relations in New Hampshire Employment Cases:
When a Former Employer Calls Your New Boss
Imagine this scenario: You work for a company for five years. After being let go, you land a solid new position—higher salary, better opportunity—with a company that happens to do business with your former employer. A few days into the new job, your former employer finds out, places a call, and pressures the new company to terminate you. Suddenly, after only a couple of days, you're out of work again. This fact pattern is more common than many realize, and New Hampshire law provides a potential remedy through the common-law tort of intentional interference with contractual or prospective economic relations (often called tortious interference with business relations).
The Legal Framework in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire recognizes claims for both interference with existing contractual relations and interference with prospective contractual or business relations.
The elements, consistently applied by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and federal courts in the District of New Hampshire, are:
- The plaintiff had an economic relationship with a third party (even a short-term or at-will employment relationship qualifies);
- The defendant knew of that relationship;
- The defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the relationship; and
- The plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Similar Cases in New Hampshire:
A closely analogous federal case is Beaulac, et al. v. All Systems Satellite Distr., et al. 17-cv-162-LM 10/19/17
In that matter, former employers allegedly contacted the new employer and threatened to stop doing business unless the plaintiffs were fired. The District of New Hampshire denied a motion to dismiss the tortious interference claims, allowing the case to proceed. The full order is available on Justia and the court's PACER system.
Other instructive decisions include:
- NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE CORPORATION v. OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICE, INC :: 2000 :: (discussing improper purpose in the employment context and the competitor's privilege); (applying New Hampshire law to a former employer's interference with a subsequent employment relationship);
- 701 F2d 985 Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products Inc | OpenJurist
(applying New Hampshire law to a former employer's interference with a subsequent employment relationship)
- Alternative Systems Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.N.H. 2002) :: Justia analyzing both existing and prospective relations claims).
Statutes and Limitations
There is no specific New Hampshire statute that creates or defines the tort of interference with business relations; it remains a common-law cause of action. The general three-year statute of limitations under RSA 508:4 applies, running from the date the claim accrues (typically the date of termination by the new employer).
Note that RSA 354-A (the Law Against Discrimination) contains anti-interference language, but it applies only in the context of protected characteristics and discrimination claims. Pure interference claims based on commercial pressure do not require filing with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.
Practical Takeaways:
Employees who experience this scenario should document everything: the new offer, the short period of employment, any communications about the reason for termination, and the content of the former employer's call if known. Discovery often focuses on exactly what was said and the motive behind the contact.
Damages can include lost wages (significant in higher-salary positions), benefits, and related economic losses. When the statements made during the call also qualify as defamation per se (e.g., false statements injuring professional reputation), general damages may be presumed.
Former employers should exercise caution. A simple reference call is usually privileged; a demand that a business partner fire a former employee is not. If you believe a former employer improperly interfered with your new employment in New Hampshire, consult an experienced employment attorney promptly. Early evaluation of the facts, communications, and available evidence is critical.
Tags: tortious interference New Hampshire, interference with business relations NH, former employer calls new employer, employment interference claim, Beaulac case, City of Keene v. Cleaveland, wrongful interference employment, RSA 508:4, New Hampshire employment law, intentional interference contractual relations
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment