Texas Employment Law Update : Texas Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Russell D. Cawyer : Kelly Hart & Hallman Law Firm : Dallas TX Labor Updates

In Part 1, I covered some thoughts on enforcing noncompetition agreements in Texas following the Texas Supreme Court's new decision in Marsh USA.  Today I'm addressing some tips that employees (and their representatives) who are asked to sign or are attempting to bust a noncompetition agreement might consider.

Prior to signing the agreement, negotiate everything you can.  For example:

• Carve out customers or clients the employee serviced before becoming employed by the employer requesting the noncompete.
• Seek very specific scope of activity restraint rather than a very generalized restraint (e.g., employee shall not engaged in any business that competes with any of the products or services of the company).
• Negotiate a garden leave provision (i.e., the employee will receive some amount of money during the term of the noncompete period)
• Ask for a buy-out clause where the employee (or his new employer) can buy out of the noncompetition agreement.
• Ask that the noncompete be automatically waived if the employers ends the relationship through no fault of the employee (e.g., the employee is laid off).

When joining a new employer, the employee should seek an agreement the new employer will indemnify, defend and/or advance defense costs if the employee is sued over an alleged violation of the noncompete.  The employee should also try and ensure that his employment will not be terminated by the new employer in the event he is enjoined over a restrictive covenant with a former employer (Don't laugh, I've seen an new employer provide this protection in an offer letter when it expected the former employer would sue the new hire).

When litigating over the terms of a noncompetition agreement:

• Emphasize to the Court how limited the holding in Marsh USA is.  Marsh USA just ruled out a per se rule that noncompetes tied to stocks are unenforceable.
• Emphasize the lack of imminent, irreparable harm.
• Determine the primary purpose of the agreement and emphasize to the Court that the real purpose is to stifle competition rather than protecting goodwill or confidential information.
• Identify lesser restrictions that will protect the employer's interest.
• Distinguish your client from the long-term, highly valued Managing Director in Marsh USA.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Ryan Miller and I were invited to speak at the Tarrant County Bar Association's Labor and Employment Section luncheon.  Our topic was the recent changes to Texas noncompete jurisprudence.  A copy of the Power Point presentation we jointly presented can be accessed here.

For my contribution, I presented some thoughts on the practical effect the Marsh USA decision will have for employers and employees that dealing with noncompetes.  Here is a summary of thoughts:

REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER USING NONCOMPETES

• Employers should continue to tie noncompetes to promises to provide confidential information and trade secrets to the employees and the employees' return promises not to disclose that information to third parties.  Trial courts are familiar with this concept and will expect it Marsh USA notwithstanding;
• Consider linking the noncompete to some financial benefit provided to the employee that is reasonably related (Marsh USA eliminates the "gives rise to" requirement of Light) to encouraging the employee to generate goodwill for the company.  Who knows how far courts will take Marsh USA, but bonuses, salary, for cause termination provisions, favorable parking spaces, fancy job titles, business expense accounts to entertain clients are a few examples of financial benefits that might be reasonably related to encourage employees to create goodwill that come to mind.
• Resist the urge to make the restrictions broader than necessary.  Courts have a statutory obligation to reform overly broad covenants, but any damages that accrue prior to reformation aren't recoverable.  Remember, reformation kills damages.
• Marsh USA isn't a magic bullet.  Marsh USA doesn't change the standard to obtain a temporary injunction (and there is where the battle often lies).  Employers still have to show probable right of success on the merits (arguably easier post-Marsh USA) and imminent irreparable harm.

In the next post, I'll cover my thoughts on what employees who may be subject to a noncompete might consider.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Texas Supreme Court has issued an opinion this morning holding that noncompetition agreements supported by stock options and good will are not unenforceable as a matter of law.  I previewed this case here.  As I have time to digest the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, I'll provide more thoughts on this case.

You can download the majority opinion here.

Concurring opinion here.

Dissenting opinion here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last summer, I detailed the Dallas Court of Appeals' decision in Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook where the court held a noncompetition agreement supported only by stock-options as consideration was unenforceable.  You can read that post here. Today, the Supreme Court of Texas announced that it would hear the appeal from the Dallas Court of Appeals.  You can view the order list here.  

Review of the Cook case gives the Court an opportunity to extend (or break) its streak of easing the standards for enforcement of restrictive covenants in Texas that I have previously detailed.  (Post here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link