1 / 16

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS April 24, 2012

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS April 24, 2012. Jessica Golden Cortes Partner 212-468-4808 jcortes@dglaw.com. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. TYPES OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. Non-Compete With and without guaranteed severance for termination with out cause

lholland
Download Presentation

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS April 24, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS April 24, 2012 Jessica Golden Cortes Partner 212-468-4808 jcortes@dglaw.com

  2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Restrictive Covenants

  3. TYPES OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS • Non-Compete • With and without guaranteed severance for termination with out cause • With and without salary continuation at employer’s choice • Industry-wide vs. limited by product or competitor • Varying lengths Restrictive Covenants

  4. TYPES OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS • Client non-solicitation and Client non-service • Can apply to all Company clients; or • Limited to clients employee serviced (greater likelihood of enforceability) • Employee non-solicitation (non-raid) Restrictive Covenants

  5. OTHER CREATIVE SOLUTIONS WITH SIMILAR IMPACT • Notice Period/Garden Leave • Employee obligation to give fixed notice of resignation • Employee remains an employee during notice period – duty of loyalty continues • Salary and benefits continue • Employer right to shorten; sideline employee Restrictive Covenants

  6. OTHER CREATIVE SOLUTIONS WITH SIMILAR IMPACT • Deferred Compensation – future vesting of cash payments in exchange for continued employment and/or restrictive covenant; forfeited by resignation • Restricted Stock Options – equity-based incentive; vests over time; forfeited by resignation • Forfeiture for Competition – benefits contingent upon compliance with restrictive covenant; not subject to same scrutiny by the courts because of employee choice Restrictive Covenants

  7. REMEDIES • Injunctive relief • expedited process to prevent “irreparable harm” that cannot be quantified in money damages; • Expensive; time consuming; can be difficult to prevail given general disfavor of courts on restricting freedom to earn living • Liquidated damages • i.e., 1 year’s revenue from the “stolen” client; 33% of “poached” employee’s salary, representing headhunter fee to replace employee Restrictive Covenants

  8. NEW YORK • Legitimate employer interests: • Protect against misappropriation of trade secrets/use or disclosure of confidential information • Protection from competition by employee whose services were unique or extraordinary • Protection of customer relationships and goodwill Restrictive Covenants

  9. NEW YORK • Arakelian v. Omnicare, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2010) • restrictive covenants unenforceable where employee terminated without cause; • “Enforcing a noncompetition provision when the employee has been discharged without cause would be ‘unconscionable’ because it would destroy the mutuality of obligation on which a covenant not to compete is based.” Restrictive Covenants

  10. CALIFORNIA • For most part, restrictive covenants are unenforceable and illegal in California, unless incident to sale of a business; • Employee non-solicitation provisions still valid; • Provisions prohibiting use and/or disclosure of confidential/proprietary Company information valid Restrictive Covenants

  11. ILLINOIS • Similar to New York • Legitimate employer interests under the totality of the circumstances. Factors considered: • Strength/permanence of the relationship w/ the client • Possession of confidential/proprietary information • Time/territorial restrictions. • Restriction must not unduly burden employee or be injurious to the public Restrictive Covenants

  12. TEXAS • Marsh USA v. Cook (TX Supreme Court, Dec. 2011) • Previously, continued employment not sufficient consideration for restrictive covenant; exchange of confidential information required. • After Marsh, customer relationships/good will protectable • Stock options/compensation can be consideration Restrictive Covenants

  13. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: TIPS • How to Tailor: • Geographic limitations • Product Competitor Limitations (e.g., if worked on Coke account, cannot work on Pepsi account at competitor for one year) • Client service limitations (those employee worked with) Restrictive Covenants

  14. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: TIPS • When should an employee sign an agreement? • At inception of employment (continued employment is consideration); • Note: if after commencement of employment, in some states, continued employment alone is not sufficient consideration; • IL – not sufficient unless employee continues to work for a “substantial period” after signing agreement (Illinois) • IL courts have held 7 months not enough, 2-3 years enough • Sign along with discretionary bonus/raise/other tangible consideration Restrictive Covenants

  15. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: TIPS • Ask candidates for employment whether they are subject to post-employment obligations of a current or former employer • Add language to offer letter stating that candidate represents and warrants that she is not subject to any post-employment obligations that will prevent her from performing services for new employer Restrictive Covenants

  16. QUESTIONS? Restrictive Covenants

More Related