Noncompete Agreements That Stick in Massachusetts

Mar 12
06:36

2011

Jonathan W. Fitch

Jonathan W. Fitch

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

Sally & Fitch LLP has been representing both employers and employees in a broad range of non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreement cases, employment discrimination actions and wrongful termination claims. They have obtained emergency, temporary, preliminary, and permanent restraining orders enforcing non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements on behalf of employers in numerous instances.

mediaimage
Many companies require employees to sign agreements not to compete with the employer after leaving their position. Noncompetition agreementshave been a common contract clause for some time. In the current economy,Noncompete Agreements That Stick in Massachusetts Articles however, these agreements have become especially important, as both employees and employers may be under increased pressure to push the legal limits of these clauses.Employees otherwise bound by noncompetition clausesmay be tempted to break them if the economy keeps employers from making payroll or paying out commissions.  With a reduced consumer base, employers may be at greater risk from former employees competing for the same business. The question, then, is what can be included in a valid noncompetition agreement?Elements of a Valid NoncompeteStates vary widely in whether and under what circumstances their laws and courts will enforce covenants not to compete. Massachusetts courts have a long history of recognizing the validity of such agreements when certain requirements are met.Massachusetts court opinions state that, to be enforceable, the restriction on competition must be "necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, reasonably limited in time and space, and consonant with the public interest." The court will examine the particular agreement and surrounding circumstances to determine whether the noncompete is reasonable, and the terms may be "no more restrictive than necessary." In analyzing a noncompete, a Massachusetts court will strictly construe the agreement in favor of the employee because of his or her weak bargaining power in comparison to that of the employer.Legitimate Business InterestsBusiness interests considered legitimate enough to merit protection under noncompete agreements and similar provisions include:    * Proprietary information    * Confidential business information such as customer lists    * Trade secrets    * Good will, also called good reputation    * Customer listsThe Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has stated that "ordinary competition" is not a legitimate interest worthy of protection.Limits on Time and SpaceMassachusetts requires that noncompetes impose reasonable restrictions on how long a former employee may not compete and in what geographical area he or she may not engage in competing business for that time period. Many decisions have found durations under five years to be reasonable, but it is entirely dependent on the individual situation.Consistent With Public InterestMassachusetts courts recognize the tension between two public interests: an employer's right to protect its legitimate business interests from the potentially damaging commercial activity of a former employee, and that employee's right to earn a living after leaving employment by participating in robust commercial activity of his or her choice. The court may find the terms of a noncompete inconsistent with either of these public interests.  Reformation of AgreementA Massachusetts court will wholly enforce a completely valid noncompetition agreement, but may reform individually invalid parts of an otherwise legitimate agreement. For example, the court might shorten the unreasonable duration time of a noncompete, leaving its other reasonable terms intact.Seek Legal AdviceSkilled legal counsel is essential for both employers and employees dealing with noncompetes. Employerswant to make their noncompetition agreements airtight and enforceable, and need legal advice when trying to enforce them against former employees. On the other hand, an employee considering a noncompete should consult with an experienced employment attorney about whether it is reasonable and valid. Workers may also need legal advice when contemplating whether certain activity would violate their noncompetes.The law surrounding covenants not to compete is complicated and evolving, especially in light of the changes in perspective new technologies and Web-based commerce bring.

Also From This Author

Ongoing Arbitration for Mobil Oil Over Venezuelan Assets

Ongoing Arbitration for Mobil Oil Over Venezuelan Assets

Sally & Fitch LLP has extensive experience representing clients in international litigation and international arbitrations. The international cases they handle involve sizable commercial contract disputes, business-related torts, including claims for misrepresentation and fraud, admiralty and maritime matters, and actions for the enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign courts.
Navigating the "Same Wrongdoer" Defense in Check Fraud Cases

Navigating the "Same Wrongdoer" Defense in Check Fraud Cases

In the realm of check fraud litigation, the "same wrongdoer" defense emerges as a crucial legal shield for banks, particularly under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as implemented in Massachusetts. This defense plays a pivotal role when bank customers, after discovering unauthorized signatures on their checks, seek to hold their banks accountable. The defense stipulates that if a customer fails to report an initial fraudulent activity within a reasonable timeframe, they cannot claim recovery for subsequent forgeries by the same perpetrator. This article delves into the intricacies of this rule, its legal foundations, and its implications for both banks and customers.
New RESPA Regulations: What Lenders Should Know

New RESPA Regulations: What Lenders Should Know

Sally & Fitch LLP represents property owners, managers and investors in a broad array of real estate and land use litigation cases. They have successfully tried numerous eminent domain cases. They are effective advocates in disputes concerning commercial leasing, rights in condominiums, architect and construction contracts, and agreements for the purchase and sale of real estate.