🔒CT animal behaviorist alleges corporate espionage in trade secrets dispute

Animal behaviorist Allyson Salzer thought moving 1,300 miles from Missouri to Connecticut would put sufficient distance between herself and her former employer. After leaving the pet-training company Beyond the Dog LLC in March 2023, Salzer relocated to Glastonbury to build her own animal consulting business, Canine Behavioral Blueprints, which specializes in behavioral psychology for dogs struggling with aggression, phobias and fearfulness. “I moved across the country from Beyond the Dog, and simply just wanted to be left alone,” Salzer recently told the Hartford Business Journal. But her former employer, based in Kansas City, had other plans. What followed would grow into a federal court battle that highlights a larger question facing employers and workers: how far companies can go to protect proprietary business methods when an employee leaves, and where the line exists between safeguarding information and suppressing competition.

The lawsuit

The trouble began when Beyond the Dog filed a federal suit against Salzer in October 2024 — more than a year after she left her position as a dog training and behavior specialist. Beyond the Dog’s suit claims Salzer stole proprietary information, including an algorithm for analyzing dog behavior that assigned numerical values based on factors like breed, history of biting and acquisition method. It alleges breach of a noncompete agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment and unfair competition. Salzer, who has a Ph.D. in behavioral psychology, argues those claims are baseless and has filed a counterclaim alleging that Beyond the Dog mounted a campaign to tarnish her reputation and push her out of the industry. In a motion filed May 9 seeking a restraining order against Beyond the Dog, her attorneys describe the company’s alleged “unfair and unscrupulous conduct” in trying to destroy her small business. “Skilled employees are entitled to take their general knowledge, skills and experience to new opportunities,” the motion states, citing legal precedent. “Plaintiff must do more than assert that a skilled employee is taking his abilities to a competitor.” Salzer’s request for injunctive relief stemmed from what her legal team characterized in court documents as corporate espionage. Kate Cassidy, a partner with Wiggin & Dana, representing Salzer pro bono, said she took the case because of what she perceived as abusive behavior toward a small-business owner.

“I cannot stand bullies, and I don’t like it when people are being bullied,” Cassidy said. “This case screams of bullying.”

Undercover spy

By mid-2024, Beyond the Dog co-owner Sean Savage began to suspect that Salzer might be using the company’s proprietary training techniques, according to court records. Savage was so concerned that he sent a friend, Dan McClutchy, posing as a potential client with a fictitious dog, to spy on Salzer’s business. McClutchy obtained intake forms, which he later shared with Beyond the Dog’s owners, court records said. Salzer said that betrayal of trust left her distressed and anxious — fearful she might be entrapped by fake clients and watched. “Once I was made aware that Dan McClutchy was not a real client, it rocked my business to its core,” Salzer testified. “I cannot trust that individuals that are calling me to seek help for their dogs are true clients.” Beyond the Dog also sent letters to two organizations where Salzer worked part-time while setting up her business — the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Our Companions, a nonprofit animal rescue and sanctuary in Manchester — warning them of her contractual obligations, according to the counterclaim. At Our Companions, Savage attended a virtual presentation Salzer hosted, and then contacted her supervisor. Our Companions was so spooked by the interaction that it canceled a planned lecture series featuring Salzer, court documents show. In the counterclaim, Salzer’s legal team — which includes Cassidy and three other Wiggin & Dana attorneys, Nathan Denning, Robert M. Langer and Tala Sebastian — invokes the powerful Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, focusing on deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, tortious interference and defamation. CUTPA is commonly used in Connecticut business litigation, and the statute’s reach has grown in recent years. At the close of the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers created seven new automatic CUTPA violations, bringing the total to 109. The statute prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” — intentionally broad language that gives parties latitude to challenge business misconduct beyond traditional contract or civil wrongdoing claims. “Plaintiffs’ anticompetitive conduct offends public policy and constitutes an unjustifiable interference with Dr. Salzer’s right to pursue her lawful occupation and trade in Connecticut and has caused a significant loss to defendants,” a motion filed by Salzer’s legal team states.

‘A live debate’

The case, unfolding in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut, raises questions about what constitutes protectable trade secrets, how far companies can restrict former employees and when enforcement of business agreements crosses into illegal interference. In Connecticut, noncompete agreements are generally legal, provided they are reasonable in scope, geography and duration. Salzer’s noncompete agreement, court records show, prohibited her from soliciting customers within Missouri, Kansas and the greater Houston area for two years after her resignation from Beyond the Dog. Since Salzer’s employment ended on March 22, 2023, the noncompete restrictions expired this year on March 22. Beyond the Dog sued Salzer about 19 months into the two-year restriction period — roughly five months before the noncompete was set to expire. In a June 11 decision, U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden found that key provisions of the noncompete agreement were “no longer in effect.” Employment attorneys note that while noncompete and trade-secret protections serve legitimate purposes, courts often scrutinize whether companies are employing these tools to stifle competition rather than to protect proprietary information.

“The application of antitrust and anticompetition law to noncompetes is very much a live debate,” said Josh Goodbaum, a partner at Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, an employment law firm based in New Haven. Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission took the position that the vast majority of — if not all — noncompetes were anticompetitive and therefore invalid, he said. “The Trump FTC seems to be more forgiving of at least some noncompetes, but it appears to want to take action in this area, especially where an employer imposes its noncompetes on all of its employees regardless of seniority or context,” said Goodbaum, who is not involved in Salzer’s case.

Turning the scales

Recent court action appears to tilt the scales in Salzer’s favor. On Aug. 22, Judge Bolden found there was “very little in this record to justify any allegation of Dr. Salzer’s unauthorized use of the trade secrets of Beyond the Dog.” The judge imposed a preliminary injunction restraining Beyond the Dog from deploying fake clients, surveilling Salzer or telling third parties she misappropriated trade secrets.

Also, Bolden found that one of the behavioral evaluation methods Salzer allegedly stole was not a trade secret because one of the company’s owners had publicly discussed the algorithm on YouTube. Further, documents Beyond the Dog relied on appear to have been created after Salzer left the company, based on a review of their metadata, according to a motion filed by Salzer’s legal team Nov. 25. “The fact that plaintiffs have not identified or disclosed any trade secret in this case is dispositive of all their claims,” the motion argues. “Defendants have spent over a year litigating this case, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against these spurious allegations, and we are still in the dark as to what the secret is.” Beyond the Dog and its owners have requested additional time to continue settlement discussions with Salzer. An attorney for Beyond the Dog, Glenn A. Duhl, a shareholder with New Haven-based Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello, did not respond to a request for comment. If Salzer ultimately prevails, she could recover damages for lost business opportunities, harm to her professional reputation and emotional distress. A GoFundMe campaign states she has hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from the court battle, though her legal team is now working pro bono. “I’ve spent over a decade building my career in animal behavior, including earning my Ph.D. in behavioral psychology, and I want to continue working in the field I’m committed to,” Salzer said. “Connecticut is my home now, and being able to practice here means building long-standing, meaningful relationships within this community, helping families enjoy their pets, especially those who rescue animals from shelters.” She added: “I believe it’s essential to uphold my integrity and reputation, and to preserve the accessibility of the field as a whole.”