© 2017 The Texas Lawbook.
By L.M. Sixel of the Houston Chronicle
(April 7) – A former FBI agent who led the U.S. security operations of Shell Oil Co. has sued the oil giant after his superiors refused to hire a security advise because the man was allegedly too old and the wrong gender. But now the litigation is testing the limits of employee confidentiality agreements.
Crockett Oaks III, the ex-FBI agent, was part of a selection committee that last year recommended the hiring of a 53-year-old man with a military background as a security adviser. But when the company directed the committee to find a younger female candidate, Oaks objected to hiring based on age or gender and was subsequently fired.
Oaks sued, but Shell Oil, the U.S. subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, last week obtained a temporary court order blocking Oaks from revealing potentially damaging information about Shell’s personnel practices to support his claim.
As head of security, Oaks was privy to confidential personnel decisions that might show that his firing was retaliatory, according to court documents. Shell alleges that Oaks violated his employment agreement when he shared confidential information with his lawyer and a third-party mediator brought in to settle the dispute.
Shell also claims Oaks breached his duty of loyalty and good faith to Shell by threatening to disclose details of internal investigations at Shell that the company believes are confidential.
Seeking and obtaining a restraining order is unusual in cases involving confidential information, legal specialists said. Typically, both sides agree in advance to file confidential information under seal such as patents, trademarks or even Social Security numbers. The information can be used as evidence in the case, but it’s not part of the public record.
The issue of confidentiality comes up most of- ten when employees who feel wronged were former high-level executives privy to corporate secrets that they promised not to re- veal, Houston employment lawyer Martin Shellist said. But confidentially agreements also can’t block an employee — or ex-employee — from getting legal help.
“It doesn’t mean they can’t talk to their lawyer about it,” Shellist said.
Shell declined comment. Oaks and his attorney, Houston employment lawyer Mark Oberti, also declined to comment.
Oaks, who began working for Shell in 2003, was responsible for investigating security threats to employees, property and the company’s reputation, and was required to keep even the existence of investigations a secret.
Before filing in federal court in Houston, Oaks and his lawyer notified Shell of the pending com- plaint, a common legal practice to launch settlement talks. About a month later, Shell filed for a temporary restraining order in state court, alleging that Oaks’ plan to reveal sensitive personnel information through his lawsuit was an “effort to coerce the company” into a financial settlement.
State District Court Judge Bill Burke granted the order, which prevents Oaks from disclosing confidential details, including results of Shell’s investigations.
The restraining order didn’t stop Oaks from filing his lawsuit against Shell last week in federal court in Houston. The lawsuit included five pages of blacked-out allegations that would have exposed the employment history of Shell employees who committed unspecified acts of “wrongdoing,” yet were not terminated, according to court documents.
Oaks, who earned more than $325,000 a year as security chief, is seeking back pay, unrealized stock options and lost pension benefits.
For a longer version of this article, please visit the Houston Chronicle Business Section at http://www.chron.com/business/.
© 2017 The Texas Lawbook. Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.
If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.