People Poaching
Student Preparedness Sheet Topic: The "Heart Balm"
Analogy: From Marital Alienation to Corporate "Poaching"
Context: Professor Turley’s Blog (August 16, 2026)
Talking Points: Torts, "Heart Balm," & Current Corporate AI Shake-ups
1. The Reference: The "Heart Balm" Premise (Ammel v. Sinema)
The Case: Heather Ammel sued former Senator Kyrsten Sinema for alienation of affection, claiming Sinema’s relationship with her husband (Matthew Ammel, a former security guard and fellow on Sinema’s staff) destroyed their marriage.
The "Heart Balm" Concept: This is a "heart balm" tort—a category of laws designed to compensate for the emotional and economic injury caused by the intentional interference with a personal relationship (marriage).
The Analogy: It is a "heart balm" suit because the core injury is personal resentment and relational destruction, not just a breach of a written contract.
The Economic Reality: While the suit is rooted in emotion ("hard feelings"), the damages sought are substantial ($75k+), covering loss of family support and economic stability.
Jonathan Turley’s Point: The tort exists to fill the gap where contract law fails. The husband broke the marital contract, but the wife cannot sue him for breach of contract; she must sue the third party (Sinema) for the tortious act of alienating affection.
The "Personal" Element: The injury is visceral. It involves betrayal, loss of companionship, and the emotional devastation of a family unit, making the monetary damages a proxy for the loss of "love" and "support."
2. The Student’s Query: The Corporate "Poaching" Analogy
The Shift to Corporate: Does the Ammel/Sinema case offer a valid framework for corporate "poaching"?
Scenario: Company A (e.g., Apple) sues Company B (e.g., OpenAI) after a key insider leaves, allegedly taking "trade secrets" and "insider expertise."
The Question: Can Company A claim a tort against Company B similar to "alienation of affection," arguing that Company B "stole" their employee and the "affection" (loyalty/trust) the employee owed the company?
The Common Denominator: "Hard Feelings" + Injury; Personal vs. Corporate Resentment
Ammel: Sues for the emotional betrayal of a husband leaving her for a rival.
Apple: Sues for the "hard feelings" of losing prime players to a direct competitor who allegedly "poached" them, causing a "shake-up" in the industry.
The "Loyalty" Factor: Just as the marriage contract implies a duty of loyalty to the spouse, the employment relationship implies a duty of loyalty to the employer. The "theft" is of that loyalty, not just the code.
The Third-Party Liability: In both cases, the direct wrongdoer (husband/employee) breached a duty, but the plaintiff sues the third party (Sinema/Competitor) for actively inducing the breach and profiting from the "heartbreak."
3. The Legal Bridge: Tortious Interference & Trade Secrets; The "Tort" Mechanism
Contract Law: Fails here. Company B didn't sign Apple's NDA. Apple cannot sue OpenAI for "breach of contract."
Tort Law: The only path. Apple must prove OpenAI committed a tort.
Tortious Interference: Actively inducing the employee to break their duty of loyalty.
Trade Secret Misappropriation: Knowingly using information acquired through the employee's breach.
The "Heart Balm" Parallel
Subjectivity of the Asset: "Affection" is as subjective and hard to define as "insider expertise" or "corporate culture."
The "Willful and Malicious" Standard
Ammel: Must prove Sinema acted with "willful and malicious" intent to destroy the marriage.
Apple: Must prove OpenAI acted with "reckless disregard" or "knowing" receipt of stolen secrets.
The "Poaching" Nuance: If Apple claims OpenAI "poached" talent because they had "hard feelings" about the loss, this mirrors the personal resentment in Ammel. It’s not just about the work done; it’s about the relationship broken.
4. Key Distinctions & The "Reversibility" Test: Where the Analogy Holds
- Both cases involve a third party (Sinema/Competitor) being sued for the economic and emotional fallout of a breached relationship.
- Both rely on proving intent to interfere (malice vs. negligence/knowledge).
- Both seek damages for the loss of the "asset" (support/market position) caused by the third party.
Where the Analogy Diverges: The Nature of the "Property"
Ammel: "Affection" is a personal, emotional bond. Most states have abolished this tort because it’s too subjective.
Apple: "Trade Secrets" are objective, definable assets (code, formulas). They are protected by federal law (DTSA) and state statutes.
The "Inevitable Disclosure" Doctrine
In corporate law, courts can issue injunctions preventing an employee from working for a competitor, arguing they "inevitably" will disclose secrets. In personal law, a court cannot order Sinema to "stop loving" Matthew. The remedy is purely monetary.
The "Hard Feelings" Argument
- Apple’s Claim: "You poached our best people, and we have 'hard feelings' about the betrayal of trust."
- Ammel’s Claim: "You stole my husband, and I have 'hard feelings' about the betrayal of our vows."
The Professor’s Point: The "poaching" of talent is the corporate equivalent of "alienation of affection." It’s not just about the code; it’s about the loyalty broken.
5. Discussion Questions for Class
The "Heart Balm" in Business: If "alienation of affection" is considered too subjective for personal relationships, why is "trade secret misappropriation" considered a robust property right in business? Where is the line between "general knowledge" (owned by the employee) and "trade secret" (owned by the company)?
The "Poaching" Standard: Does the "hard feelings" argument (emotional betrayal) have any place in corporate torts? Or should the law focus solely on the economic loss (market share), ignoring the "personal" aspect of loyalty?
The Third-Party Liability: If Apple sues OpenAI for "poaching," does OpenAI need to have asked the employee to bring secrets (active inducement), or is it enough that they knew the employee was leaving and hired them anyway (passive receipt)? How does this compare to Sinema’s defense that she didn’t "induce" the affair?
The Future of "Heart Balm": As AI and tech companies compete for talent, will we see a resurgence of "heart balm" style suits in the corporate world, where companies sue competitors for "stealing" their "affection" (loyalty) for key employees?