A federal judge in Missouri ruled Monday that a former San Diego-based broker for Lockton Cos. LLC who joined rival Alliant Insurance Services Inc. breached the terms of her contract that required employment disputes to be heard in Missouri rather than California, which is seen as a jurisdiction more favorable to employees in employment suits.

The judge, who had previously ruled that the forum selection clause was valid, said Lockton could also seek summary judgment on the issue of damages against the broker. In addition, it ruled restrictive covenants in the broker’s employment agreement, which bar her from soliciting Lockton clients for four years, were reasonable.

In some other elements of the dispute, though, the ruling favored Sallie Giblin, a former president of Lockton’s San Diego office.

The suit, Lockton Cos. LLC-Pacific Series v. Sallie F. Giblin, was filed in November 2022. It alleged that Ms. Giblin failed to serve a 30-day notice period and had made claims of unfair treatment and discrimination against Lockton “as leverage to obtain a release from her commitment not to solicit Lockton customers and other restrictions.”

Ms. Giblin then sued Lockton in California state court alleging she was subject to gender discrimination and retaliation by other executives at the brokerage. In addition, she argued that Lockton’s noncompete agreements were unenforceable and that her dispute with brokerage should be heard in California.

In Monday’s partial summary judgment ruling, Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division said Lockton’s operating agreement included a Missouri forum selection clause and Ms. Giblin was bound by the agreement.

“Giblin had a mandatory duty to abide by the Missouri forum-selection clause and breached that duty,” the judge ruled.

In addition, as Lockton alleges it suffered financial losses by having to defend the California suit, “the Court is amenable to reopening the deadline for summary judgment and invites Lockton to seek summary judgment on the issue of its damages,” the ruling states.

The judge ruled for Ms. Giblin on several issues, including that her contract did not require her to give 30 days’ notice and that there was not sufficient evidence that she breached the nonsolicitation clauses in her contract by, among other things, inviting former clients to a panel event she moderated.

Lockton said in a statement: “We are very pleased with the court’s decision today on the enforceability of Lockton’s core restrictive covenants with its former producer members.”

A lawyer representing Ms. Giblin did not respond to a request for comment.