• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / Blog / Employment Non-compete Agreements: Disfavored Does Not Mean Not Enforceable

Employment Non-compete Agreements: Disfavored Does Not Mean Not Enforceable

February 24, 2014 //  by Steve Runyan

Steve-Runyan-Web-BlogNearly every case Indiana court decision concerning non-compete agreements, or non solicitation agreements, notes that such agreements are disfavored … “covenants not to compete are in restraint of trade and are not favored by the law.”[1]

Nevertheless, such agreements are regularly enforced when an employer can demonstrate that the restriction is reasonable. The reasonableness of a restriction is measured in two steps:  1) Whether the employer has a legitimate protectable interest, and 2) whether the covenants are reasonable in scope as to the time, geography and activity restricted.

Is the employer protecting a “legitimate interest”?

Generally, a business claims that the non-compete is the only way to protect the company’s trade secrets or goodwill, including “names and addresses of customers and the advantage acquired through representative contact.”[2] Indiana law agrees that a business may restrict its former employees from enticing away the employer’s old customers and thereby protect its client relationships and income stream.

In JAK Productions, Inc. v. Wiza, 986 F.2d 1080 (7th Cir. 1993), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that there is a “presumption under Indiana law that a covenant cannot restrain employees from doing business with their ex-employer’s past customers” and that a covenant which seeks to restrain business with customers that were not customers at the time of the employee’s termination, is overly broad.

Is the restriction reasonable in scope?

  • Time

Courts have typically found that non-competition agreements of one to two years are reasonable.  In cases where a non-competition agreement is entered into in conjunction with the sale of a business, courts have regularly upheld five year non-competition agreements for the selling party.

  • Geography

Whether the geographic restriction in a non-compete is reasonable is dependent on the facts of the case.  Considering a physician’s non-compete which prevented him from practicing in the same or contiguous counties, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the restriction for the counties where the physician practiced, but struck down the contiguous-county provision.[3]  Conversely, in a sales context, non-competition agreements have been reasonable when applied to any state in which an employee served customers.[4]  No bright-line rule exists regarding geographic reasonableness.  Rather, the court will consider the facts of the case, including the type of work performed and the interests the employer seeks to protect.

Importantly, Indiana law permits courts to modify an otherwise overly broad agreement by striking out the overly broad provisions.  Known as the “blue pencil doctrine,” the court cannot add words, but may strike out words in the agreement if doing so would render the contract enforceable-“unreasonable restraints are rendered reasonable by scratching out any offensive clauses to give effect to the parties’ intention.”[5]

  • Activity

Broadly stated, Indiana courts have traditionally required the prohibited activity to be that activity which the employee conducted for the former employer.[6]  An employer may not prevent an employee from competing with portions of the business with which he was never associated.[7]

This goes back to the point that the employee may only protect its legitimate business interests.  A non-compete may not be used to punish a former employee or to prevent the employee from earning a living. Using a non-compete to prevent an employee “from working within portions of the business with which the employee was never associated [is] unreasonable because such restrictions extend beyond the scope of the employer’s legitimate interest.”[8]

Both businesses and employees need to keep these guidelines in mind when negotiating non-competition agreements and when considering the enforceability of a non-competition agreement after the termination of employment.  If you have any questions about your non-competition agreement, or any other contract disputes, don’t hesitate to contact our office. Contact me Steven E. Runyan

 


[1]  Pathfinder Communications Corp. v. Macy, 795 N.E.2d 1103, 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[2] Unger v. FFW Corp., 771 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); Titus v. Rheitone, 758 N.E.2d 85, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[3] Cent. Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723, 730-31 (Ind. 2008).

[4] Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., 942 N.E.2d 905, 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

[5] Smart Corp. v. Grider, 650 N.E.2d 80, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

[6] Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp., 127 N.E.2d 235, 240-41 (Ind. 1955) (citing Roy v. Bolduc, 34 A.2d 479, 480 (Me. 1943), 149 A.L.R. 630, 632-633) (“[A] covenant which would limit … employment with a competitor beyond the scope of his present employment is void”).

[7] Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp., 127 N.E.2d 235, 239 (Ind. 1955).

[8] MacGill v. Reid, 850 N.E.2d 926, 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Category: Blog, Corporate Law, Employment LawTag: Steven Runyan

Previous Post: « Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Revised
Next Post: Does contamination mean a reduction in property value? »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    RECENT POSTS

    Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

    The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

    The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

    We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

    2 New Attorneys, 1 Paralegal Join KGR

    KGR is thrilled to start the New Year with two new attorneys Wes …

    KGR Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against City of Bloomington in Free Speech Case

    Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its local chapter on the Indiana …

    KGR Attorneys File Lawsuit Against USA Track & Field to Advance Athlete Health & Safety

    KGR’s Sports and Entertainment Law Team, led by KGR Partner Bill …

    Footer

    Indianapolis Office

    Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

    (317) 692-9000
    (317) 264-6832
    Directions

    Connect with us!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Newsletter

    Select list(s) to subscribe to


    By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

    Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in