United States: Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insufficient Consideration Where Employer Relied On Under Two Years Employment In Support Of Noncompetition And Nonsolicitation Agreements

On June 24, 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District (encompassing Cook County and Chicago) decided Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., Case No. 1-12-0327 (June 24, 2013).  The court found that Premier Dealer Services' (Premier) offer of at-will employment at the onset of the plaintiff's employment constituted insufficient consideration to support nonsolicitation and noncompetition provisions contained in his employment contract, but it would have constituted adequate consideration if his employment had continued for two years.  The court relied on prior authority, which held that when a current employee signs a restrictive covenant and receives nothing more than continued at-will employment in return, this only constitutes adequate consideration if the employment ultimately continues for a significant period.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a long-standing employee of a Great American Insurance Company subsidiary, which marketed finance and insurance products to the automotive industry.  In October of 2009, Great American sold the subsidiary to Premier, a separate and distinct company that developed, marketed and administered a variety of after-market automotive products and programs.  As a result, Great American informed the plaintiff that his employment would end as of October 31, 2009.  Premier offered the plaintiff employment late in October 2009, but required him to execute its "Employee Confidentiality and Inventions Agreement" that included two-year noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants.

Three and a half months later, he resigned from Premier and began working for a competitor.  The plaintiff and his new employer then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County for declaratory relief that the noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions in the agreement were invalid and unenforceable.  Premier countersued for injunctive relief, seeking to enforce the noncompete provision.  The plaintiff's main argument was that the restrictive covenants were not supported by adequate legal consideration because he only worked for Premier for three and a half months.  In response, Premier argued that the consideration was his employment itself, because he had been terminated by Great American and re-hired by Premier.  The circuit court sided with the plaintiff and his new employer and invalidated the restrictive covenants for lack of consideration.  The appellate court affirmed. 

Legal Standards

Illinois courts have long held that "substantial continued employment" can constitute sufficient consideration for an enforceable restrictive covenant.  In determining what constitutes "substantial" continued employment, Illinois courts have generally found that terms of two years or greater constituted adequate consideration while terms of less than one year have constituted insufficient consideration.  However, there have been exceptions and Illinois courts have been reluctant to adopt a strict "numeric formula" for determining the necessary duration of continued employment.  For example, in LKQ Corp. v. Thrasher, 785 F. Supp. 2d 737, 744 (N.D. Ill. 2011), the court refused to apply a bright-line two year test and found that 12 months of continued employment, which ended with the employee quitting as opposed to being fired, constituted the necessary "substantial period" of continued employment to act as consideration in support of a restrictive covenant.

Prior Illinois cases have also held that when a restrictive covenant is contained in the initial contract of employment, the job itself serves as sufficient consideration for the covenant.  Smithereen Co. v. Renfroe, 325 Ill. App. 229, 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1945) (reviewing Illinois law and finding that restrictive covenants entered into at the onset of an at-will employment relationship do not fail for want of consideration because the employment itself is sufficient); Abel v. Fox, 274 Ill. App. 3d 811, 820 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1995) (same; "a covenant in such a situation is not a "naked" restraint on trade, but instead is merely ancillary to the primary purpose of the relationship: an employer-employee relationship.").  However, in Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Suess, 24 F.3d 941, 947 (7th Cir. 1994), the Seventh Circuit discussed the "illusory benefit" of the at-will employment relationship.  In that case, the employee (Suess) entered into a restrictive covenant with his employer (Curtis 1000) at the commencement of employment, and was required to sign three subsequent and superseding noncompetition agreements.  On none of these occasions did he receive any consideration for signing the document other than his retention as an employee.  The Seventh Circuit concluded that "the new covenant was the modification of an existing contract and hence required consideration to be enforceable."  Curtis 1000 argued that adequate consideration was present in the form of the continued employment relationship after Suess' execution of the final covenant.  The Seventh Circuit agreed, finding that although the employment-at-will relationship could be terminated at any time after the execution of a subsequent agreement, when the employment relationship continues thereafter for a "substantial period" of time, consideration exists and the promise of continued employment is not illusory.   Notably, the Seventh Circuit did not state that the commencement of employment itself was inadequate consideration to support a restrictive covenant.  

The Appellate Court's Analysis in Fifield

The Fifield court found that the fact that the employee resigned, as opposed to being terminated, was irrelevant for purposes of establishing adequate consideration.  Likewise, the court deemed it irrelevant that the employer promised not to invoke the post-employment covenants if the employee was terminated without cause within the first year of employment. 

The court implicitly rejected common law that, at the outset of the employment relationship, employment itself constitutes adequate consideration for post-employment restrictive covenants.See  Restatment 2d of Contracts, § 188 ("When a restrictive covenant is contained in the initial contract of employment, the job itself serves as sufficient consideration for the covenant.").  Relying in part on its interpretation of Curtis 1000, the court found that "there must be at least two years or more of continued employment to constitute adequate consideration in support of a restrictive covenant."  (Fifield  at 10).  The court did not recognize any distinction between an initial restrictive covenant entered into at the outset of an employment relationship and a subsequent restrictive covenant or amendment entered into after the employment relationship has started. 

This ruling, coupled with the court's finding that the circumstances of the termination are irrelevant, arguably provides an employee with a two-year window to quit, prior to facing the ramifications of the previously agreed-upon contract, if the only consideration is the employment relationship itself and that relationship is "at-will." 

Implications for Employers

  • The Fifield  decision highlights the need for employers operating in Illinois to examine the adequacy of the consideration supporting their restrictive covenants.  Because the Illinois Supreme Court has not examined the issue, it is still uncertain whether Fifield is contrary to other authority under Illinois law and will be modified or even rejected.  However, at a minimum, currently there is a significant risk that less than two years of continued at-will employment, without more, is inadequate consideration to support a restrictive covenant under Illinois law.  As a corollary, Illinois employees arguably can void the consideration for a restrictive covenant simply by quitting prior to the two-year anniversary of the agreement in question.      

  • Illinois employers should consider whether an additional benefit is necessary and sufficient to save future and existing restrictive covenants that rely on nothing more than at-will employment as consideration.  Those employees who remain employed with a company for more than two years after the execution of the relevant restrictive covenant agreement do not appear to be at issue.  However, for those employees who have been with a company for less than two years and for future employees, providing additional consideration above and beyond continued at-will employment may reduce the risk of nonenforcement.  Illinois courts have recognized various forms of adequate consideration in the employment restrictive covenant area including, but not limited to: bonuses, stock options, additional vacation and other fringe benefits.  See First Health Grp. Corp. v. National Prescription Adm'rs, Inc.,  155 F. Supp. 2d 194, 299 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (applying Illinois law to covenant issues; finding stock options adequate consideration for restrictive covenant); Southern Illinois Medical Business Assocs. V. Camillo, 190 Ill. App. 3d 664 (5th Dist. 1989) (finding $8,000 in 1989 to be adequate consideration); Midwest Tel., Inc. v. Oloffson, 298 Ill. App. 3d 548 (3d Dist. 1998) (finding specified pay raises and guaranteed terms of employment sufficient consideration); H. B. G. Corp. v. Houbolt, 51 Ill. App. 3d 955, 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 1977) (finding salary of $25,000 per year and "various fringe benefits" sufficient consideration).  One court has indicated that "In the context of postemployment restrictive covenants, Illinois courts depart from the traditional rule that the law does not inquire into the adequacy of consideration, only its existence." Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Mudron, 379 Ill. App. 3d 724, 728-729 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2008).  Arguably, in context, this relates only to circumstances where at-will employment constitutes the consideration.  Nonetheless, the less valuable such additional consideration is, the greater the risk that a court will deem it to be insufficient.  Employers should speak with employment counsel to determine whether additional consideration would pass the Illinois courts' scrutiny of "illusory benefits."  

We will continue to monitor the Illinois dockets for further appellate activity in this and related cases.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ethan G. Zelizer
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions