## Facts

- Bankers Life employed Gregory P. Gelineau as a branch sales manager and, in 2006, he signed an agreement barring him (during employment and for 24 months after) from inducing company personnel to curtail or sever their relationship with Bankers Life, or to sell competing insurance, within his branch territory.
- Gelineau’s employment ended in January 2015, and he became senior vice president of American Senior Benefits (ASB), a competitor.
- After joining ASB, Gelineau updated his LinkedIn profile to reflect his new employment.
- LinkedIn automatically sent generic “invitation to connect” emails to people in Gelineau’s LinkedIn contacts, including Bankers Life employees and agents.
- The invitations contained standardized LinkedIn language inviting recipients to connect; they did not mention ASB products, job opportunities, or urge recipients to leave Bankers Life.
- Some Bankers Life personnel who received invitations later left for ASB; Bankers Life alleged the LinkedIn invitations breached the nonsolicitation covenant.

## Issues

1. Whether generic, platform-generated LinkedIn connection invitations sent to a former employer’s personnel constitute prohibited “solicitation” or an attempt to induce them to sever their relationship under the nonsolicitation clause.
2. Whether the record presented genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment for Gelineau on the breach claim.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Bankers Life’s request for additional discovery before ruling on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Gelineau on the breach of contract claim.
- The court held the LinkedIn invitations were not solicitations and did not constitute an attempt to induce Bankers Life personnel to resign or sever their relationship.
- The court held Bankers Life’s theory that the invitations caused departures to ASB was speculative on this record.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of additional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A communication must contain content that urges, requests, or attempts to persuade the recipient to take action prohibited by the restrictive covenant to qualify as contractual “solicitation.”
- Generic, automated social-media “connect” invitations that do not reference job opportunities, recruitment, or leaving a current employer are networking communications, not solicitations, as a matter of law on undisputed facts.
- Summary judgment is proper when the record, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- A party seeking additional discovery to resist summary judgment must show the sought material is likely to produce evidence creating a genuine fact dispute; mere hope of finding helpful evidence is insufficient, and discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the former manager because automated, generic LinkedIn connection invitations—even if received by former coworkers who later changed employers—did not, without recruitment content or inducement language, violate the nonsolicitation covenant, and further discovery was not warranted on this record.


Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. American Senior Benefits LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 160687, 83 N.E.3d 1085 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2017)