Non-Compete Law Blog

A recent decision from a Wisconsin state court serves as a cautionary tale for employers that do not routinely impose or enforce non-compete restrictions consistent with the employee’s role and potential to harm the business.

In Kohl’s Department Stores Inc. v. Janet Schalk, 2015CV001465 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 11, 2015), Judge Robert Mawdsley denied Kohl’s request for an injunction preventing its Chief Information Officer, Janet Schalk, from joining Hudson’s Bay Company partly on the grounds that Schalk’s non-compete was overly restrictive in light of Schalk’s role in comparison with the non-competes of other employees.  Kohl’s, relying upon its non-compete contract with Schalk barring her from working in a similar position with a competitive retailer for one year, argued that Schalk should be barred from joining Hudson’s Bay, a Canadian department store company, because Schalk “has the playbook, the crown jewels, our entire strategy in her hands.” Schalk argued that the non-compete was too broad and that Hudson’s Bay was not a competitor given its high-end retailing–featuring Saks Fifth Avenue and Lord & Taylor–compared to Kohl’s mid-tier status. Schalk also contended that Kohl’s overstated her role and knowledge of the company’s strategy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. that a non-compete is enforceable only if a current employee receives new consideration beyond continued employment. The Court held that this is the case even if a non-compete provides that the parties “intend to be legally bound,” which typically obviates the need for consideration under the Pennsylvania Uniform Written Obligations Act (UWOA). After considering the historical background regarding non-competes and general principles of statutory construction, the Court concluded that “a construction of the UWOA which would vitiate the need for new and valuable consideration when entering into an agreement containing a restrictive covenant after the initiation of employment would be unreasonable.”

In Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp., Judge Mitchell Kaplan of the Massachusetts Business Litigation Session enjoined a sales employee from working for a competitor for three months. This recent opinion highlights some common issues in Massachusetts non-compete law and illustrates judges’ broad discretion to fashion relief.

A recent decision from the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court has broad implications for non-compete cases involving arbitration clauses. In TIBCO Software, Inc. v. Zephyr Health, Inc. and Kevin Willoe, the court denied an employer’s motion for a temporary restraining order enforcing a non-compete, finding the employer’s own arbitration provision required it to pursue its restrictive covenant claims before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in California.

Massachusetts employers and employees have enough to contend with trying to keep abreast of the judicial and legislative fits and starts of non-compete reform within the state, let alone developments in other states. It is important to remember that non-compete law varies widely from state to state, and these variations may come into play if employees are in different states or if a former employee is moving to a new state. Below you will find just a few of the many variances in state non-compete law.