Employment & Labor Insider

NOTE FROM ROBIN: This post is not about, nor was it inspired by, the Microsoft outage that began on Thursday afternoon. 

SECOND NOTE FROM ROBIN: Our Outlook is back up as of 6:30 a.m. ET! Happy Friday the 13th, everybody!

I don’t usually write about lawsuits because I prefer to hear the other side of the story before I provide any commentary.

But in this case, I am going to make an exception because the allegations seem to be credible for reasons that will become clear shortly. That said, please understand that these are only allegations at this point.

“And then there’s Claude . . .”

Our individual defendant (we’ll call him “Christophe”) had a good IT position with a company that provided platforms for events and dining. In the spring of 2026, he starting exploring other opportunities, and at some point he began talking with our corporate defendant (we’ll call it “Scuttlebutt”). Scuttlebutt eventually offered Christophe an even better position, with the opportunity to eventually become Chief Technology Officer and paying roughly $100,000 more than Christophe was earning in his current position, among other goodies.

It was an offer Christophe couldn’t refuse, so he gave his employer two weeks’ notice this past June.

According to Christophe’s employer, Scuttlebutt was a competitor. Also, Christophe had a 12-month noncompete agreement with his employer and was prohibited from disclosing the company’s confidential and proprietary information or soliciting employees.

But during the spring of 2026 and more intensely after he accepted Scuttlebutt’s offer, Christophe started consulting with his employer’s artificial intelligence about his obligations under his noncompete and other agreements with his employer.

And here is Reason No. 1 as to why I think the allegations in the lawsuit are somewhat credible: The lawsuit quotes numerous specific alleged conversations that Christophe had with the company’s AI (an adapted version of Claude, customized for the company). It’s possible that Christophe will deny that these quotes are accurate, but the quotes are detailed and extensive and seemingly verbatim. Also, see Reason No. 2, below.

Anyway, according to the quoted material in the lawsuit, Christophe asked Claude about going to work for a competitor. Claude reminded him that he had a 12-month noncompete. Claude also told him that he was subject to non-disclosure terms – in other words, that it would be a breach of his agreement if Christophe shared his employer’s confidential and proprietary information with another company.

And that wasn’t all, according to the lawsuit. In addition, Christophe asked Claude about hiring co-workers to come to this other company. Claude was negative on that, too.

In short, Claude gave what sounds like pretty good advice. Hence the title of this post. Too bad Christophe didn’t listen.

Fallout

Within a couple of months of Christophe’s departure, some of his co-workers left the company. One co-worker went to Scuttlebutt. Others went elsewhere (not specified in the lawsuit).

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, it sounds like counsel for the employer promptly contacted counsel for Scuttlebutt. Scuttlebutt allegedly denied that Christophe violated any of his agreements with his former employer.

But then we come to Reason No. 2 as to why I think the allegations in the lawsuit may have merit: Last month, Scuttlebutt allegedly placed Christophe on administrative leave and then terminated his employment.

Just my speculation, but between the alleged denials and the termination, I suspect counsel for the employer shared the (alleged) AI communications with Scuttlebutt. Scuttlebutt (or Scuttlebutt's lawyers), in turn, got cold feet about Christophe and decided it was prudent to wish him the best in his future endeavors. Again, this is my speculation.

The lawsuit

So now the former employer has filed suit against Christophe and Scuttlebutt. Against Christophe, for violating his agreement, and against Scuttlebutt for tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting (Christophe’s) breach of duty of loyalty, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. The former employer is also seeking a preliminary injunction pending arbitration.

What a maroon! (Allegedly)

If the allegations against Christophe are true, all I can think is that both of these employers dodged a bullet. Who would be stupid enough to consult with his employer’s AI about violating his noncompete, sharing the company’s information with a competitor, and raiding its employees? And then disregard the AI’s good advice to not do these things?

Christophe, apparently.

Maybe, deep down in his heart, he wanted to get caught?