Enforceability of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provisions in the Employee Agreement
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Egerton University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
0
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by kmitey
1
Enforceability of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provisions in the Employee
Agreement
Student's Name
Course Code
Instructor's Name
Due Date
2
Enforceability of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provisions in the Employee
Agreement
The enforcement of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in employment
agreements depends on carefully analyzing four key elements for each issue and each side:
reasonable time and area, employer's legitimate interests, harm to the public, and
unreasonably burdensome to the employee. The parties involved are Kaylin Spencer, a former
account manager, and Corporate Investors, Inc., a reputable investing firm. Given Ms.
Spencer's departure, the study will methodically examine Corporate Investors' justification
for enforcing these clauses, Ms. Spencer's counterarguments, and finally offer a conclusion
on the enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses using the IRAC (Issue,
Rule, Application, and Conclusion) structure—a generally accepted legal framework.
Through thoroughly examining the particular facts, pertinent legal precedents, and
contractual language, this analysis seeks to evaluate the rights and obligations of each party
to this dispute. It also provides insightful analysis of the wider consequences of non-compete
and non-solicitation agreements in the context of employment law.
A. Discuss Corporate Investors' Reasons for Enforcing Both Provisions:
Non-Compete Provision:
Issue:
The central issue is whether the non-compete provision is legally enforceable.
Reasonable Time and Area:
Rule:
Reed v. Strauman (1976) states that a non-compete clause is enforceable if it is "reasonable in
time and area."
Application:
Corporate Investors' non-compete clause places a two-year ban without
defining a specific geographic area. They must demonstrate that this two-year limit is
reasonable and necessary to protect their legitimate interests.
3
Specific Facts: In order to demonstrate that the two-year period without a defined geographic
area is fair, corporate investors should present proof or reasoning.
Employer's Legitimate Interests:
Rule:
The employer's legitimate interests must be safeguarded by the non-compete provision.
Application:
Corporate investors contend that the provision upholds their legal rights to
retain clients and prevent them from directly defecting to competitors.
Specific Facts: The genuine interests at stake and how the non-compete agreement protects
them may need to be specified by corporate investors.
Harm to the Public:
Rule:
The public should not be harmed by the non-compete agreement.
Application:
Corporate investors can contend that there is no public harm from
implementing the non-compete agreement.
Specific Facts:
Corporate Investors should elaborate on how enforcing the non-compete
clause does not harm the general public.
Unreasonably Burdensome to the Employee:
Rule:
The non-compete clause should not be unreasonably burdensome to the employee.
Application:
Corporate Investors may need to show that the two-year limit is fair and does
not unreasonably burden Ms. Spencer.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors should provide evidence or arguments demonstrating that
the two-year restriction is fair and not overly burdensome to Ms. Spencer.
Conclusion:
Corporate Investors may need to address the specific elements of reasonable
time and area, employer's legitimate interests, harm to the public, and unreasonably
burdensome to the employee in demonstrating the enforceability of the non-compete clause.
Non-Solicitation Provision:
Issue:
The central issue is whether the non-solicitation provision is legally enforceable.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Reasonable Time and Area:
Rule:
A non-solicitation clause may be enforced if it covers clients to whom the employee
provided services within the last 24 months or potential clients that the employee solicited
during the previous 12 months.
Application:
Corporate Investors argue that the non-solicitation clause is necessary to
prevent Ms. Spencer from approaching clients she serviced during the last 24 months.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors can strengthen their case by demonstrating the specific
time frame and clients involved in the non-solicitation clause.
Employer's Legitimate Interests:
Rule:
The non-solicitation clause must be necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
interests.
Application:
Corporate Investors argue that the clause safeguards their legitimate interests in
preserving client relationships.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors should specify the legitimate interests at stake and how
the non-solicitation clause protects those interests.
Harm to the Public:
Rule:
The non-solicitation clause should not be harmful to the general public.
Application:
Corporate Investors may argue that enforcing the non-solicitation clause does
not cause harm to the public.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors should elaborate on how enforcing the non-solicitation
clause does not harm the general public.
Unreasonably Burdensome to the Employee:
Rule:
The non-solicitation clause should not be unreasonably burdensome to the employee.
5
Application:
Corporate Investors may need to show that the non-solicitation clause is fair
and not overly burdensome to Ms. Spencer.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors should provide evidence or arguments demonstrating that
the non-solicitation clause is fair and reasonable.
Conclusion:
Given Ms. Spencer's substantial clientele and the precisely specified twenty-
four-month period, Corporate Investors make a strong case for enforcing the non-solicitation
clause. This clause seems to be firmly rooted in safeguarding the legitimate interests of
corporate investors and is in line with the legal standards outlined in USI Ins. Services LLC v.
Miner, (2011).
B. Discuss the Employee's Reasons for Non-Enforcement:
Non-Compete Provision:
Ms. Spence claims that Corporate Investors did not provide her with much assistance in
acquiring clients. This argument is notable because it challenges the notion that she possesses
crucial knowledge that makes her eligible for protection under the non-compete agreement.
Specific Facts: Ms. Spence may need to provide evidence or examples illustrating the lack of
support from Corporate Investors in acquiring clients.
Non-Solicitation Provision:
Without the support of Corporate Investors, Ms. Spence asserts that her skills and efforts
developed most of her client relationships. This assertion calls into question the idea that the
contributions of corporate investors were crucial to the growth of these relationships.
Specific Facts: Ms. Spence may need to present evidence or instances where her skills played
a significant role in developing client relationships.
C. Conclusion on Enforceability:
Non-Compete Provision:
6
Since Ms. Spence joined the company without bringing any clients with her and there are no
geographical restrictions, Corporate Investors must demonstrate that the two-year restriction
is suitable to protect their interests adequately. It may turn out to be a significant point of
contention.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors may need to provide additional context or reasoning for
the lack of geographical restrictions in the non-compete provision.
Non-Solicitation Provision:
There is stronger evidence for corporate investors to enforce the non-solicitation agreement.
Ms. Spencer received a substantial clientele, and the provision is quite clear in that it is good
for an entire year. This justification greatly strengthens Corporate Investors' case for
preserving their client relationships.
Specific Facts: Corporate Investors can rely on the specific client numbers and assets
involved in enforcing the non-solicitation clause.
To summarize, the enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses
depends on how well Corporate Investors can show that they abide by the established legal
norms and how specific the conditions are. Both parties must get legal advice due to the
complexity of this topic in order to fully understand any potential legal ramifications and
navigate the challenges of enforceability. Corporate Investors and Ms. Spencer will benefit
significantly from an informed legal viewpoint that will steer them toward a settlement that
preserves fairness standards and safeguards the interests of all parties.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
References
Reed, Roberts v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 353 N.E.2d 590 (N.Y. 1976)
USI Ins. Servs. LLC v. Miner, 801 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)