Law | Law homework help

Analyze the issue based on the following criteria:

• Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
• Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
• Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
• Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
• Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.

Roger Bannister was the director of technical and product development for Bemis. Bannister entered into a covenant not to compete with Bemis, which prohibited Bannister from working for a Bemis competitor for 18 months after the termination of his employment. The covenant not to compete included a provision which stated that Bemis was to pay Bannister his monthly salary if he was unable to find work due solely to the covenant not to compete, pro-viding that he provide the relevant paperwork. Bemis terminated Bannister’s employment. Bannister’s counsel sent a letter to Bemis requesting payment of his monthly salary under the covenant not to compete because he was unemployed due solely to the covenant not to compete. In this let-ter, Bannister included a letter he had received from Mondi, which informed him that Mondi would hire him if not for the covenant not to compete. Bannister sent a job contacts log to Bemis that detailed his job search and again requested that Bemis start paying his monthly salary under the covenant not to compete. Bemis responded by allowing Bannister out of the covenant not to com-pete, with the exception that he could not work for Mondi because of a separate agreement Bemis had with Mondi. Bannister responded by letter, stating that the Bemis correspondence was the first notice of his release to pursue employment with any com-petitor other than Mondi and that he considered the release a partial release because of the Mondi exception. Bemis then confirmed in a letter that Bannister could accept “ employment with any com-pany other than [ Mondi]” and reiterated its position that there were no damages due under the covenant not to compete “ based on the fact that Mr. Bannis-ter has been released to seek employment with any company other than [ Mondi].” Bannister accepted a position with Bancroft Bag, Inc., a Bemis competitor. He brought a claim against Bemis for its failure to pay his monthly salary for the nine- month period during which he was out of work under the covenant not to com-pete. The district court found in Bannister’s favor. Bemis appealed.

How did the appellate court rule, and why? [ Bannister v. Bemis Co., Inc., 556 F. 3d 882 ( 2009).]