United States: I Can't Call Who? Employee Nonsolicitation Of Clients Covenants Under New York Law

Last Updated: January 8 2016
Article by Evan Belosa

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2017

I. Introduction

The situation happens with regularity: an employee's employment ends, for any of a variety of reasons. The employee's first thought is to get another job, call the clients of his former employer, many of whom have closely worked with him, and get back in the swing of business. Perhaps some of those clients have even called him already, offering sympathy, or asking his future plans. But in the stack of departure papers given to the employee, there is a reminder to abide by a nonsolicitation covenant contained in a governing employment document, often executed years prior. The employee and the employer, not surprisingly, often have contrary views on the applicability and enforceability of such a covenant; those contrary views can often lead to conflict and eventually, litigation.

Battles over nonsolicitation covenants are not personal vanity or blind pique. Personal contacts, both with clients and fellow service providers, comprise an increasingly valuable component of an employee's overall worth. As the Ameri­can macroeconomic model has skewed toward high-value services rather than blue-collar labor, the value of an employee's contacts with clientele has dramati­cally risen. That value is often noted by employers, who seek to retain, as best as possible, the value of the employee's contacts long after he or she departs. With employee mobility as high as ever, the validity, enforcement, and interpretation of nonsolicitation covenants has accordingly increased in importance.

Despite the importance of solicitation, the focus of restrictive covenant litigation and scholarly and industry commentary remains on noncompetition, rather than nonsolicitation covenants. Employers have traditionally included — and employees have traditionally focused on and fought — noncompetition covenants, and so the lion's share of restrictive covenant litigation has turned on the interpretation of non­competition covenants. While an entire doctrinal field has developed in response, the interpretation of nonsolicitation covenants has languished behind; nonsolicitation covenants have not been considered nearly as significant a focus of doctrinal law or practical interpretation. Yet, given both the new economic paradigm, and the disinclination of courts to deprive workers of their economic mobility, we can expect a new surge of focus on the protection of the employer's interests through the use of nonsolicitation, rather than noncompetition covenants. Accordingly, employees who sign agreements containing nonsolicitation covenants, and the employers who use them, should pay close attention to the prospective application of the words on the page.

By the careful study of New York common law, this ar­ticle answers some practical questions commonly asked by both employers and employees and in so doing, provides a framework by which drafters of nonsolicitation covenants can focus adroitly on the impact of the drafted words so as to best protect the interest of their respective clients. For purposes of this article, we are focused entirely on nonsolicitation covenants in employment agreements or other governing employment documents, rather than on covenants which may apply in to the sale of a business or between entities, such as in a non-disclosure agreement.

II. What Is a Nonsolicitation Covenant?

Before we can discuss the parameters, we need to know what we are discussing in the first place. A nonsolicitation covenant, broadly, prohibits employees from soliciting or interfering with the relationship between the employer and the employers' workers and customers after the termina­tion of employment. By way of example, a basic provision may state something along the lines of, "I agree that during my employment, and for one year thereafter, I shall not, without the written permission of the Company, directly or indirectly solicit or attempt to solicit, divert, or take away any employee, consultant, client, or customer of the Company." Some nonsolicitation covenants skew more broadly, also covering prospective clients. Others also at­tempt to restrict the acceptance of business from specific clients, regardless of who initiated contact. Nevertheless, regardless of the specific verbiage, all belong to the same basic subset of restrictive covenant that prohibits seeking the business of clientele or individuals which the employer believes are the property of the employing entity. For the purposes of this article, we are concerning ourselves solely with the more economically critical version of nonsolici­taiton clause – those that refer to clientele.

III. The Test for Validity — Reed Roberts and BDO Seidman

Like their cousins restricting competition, nonsolicitation covenants are governed by the general jurisprudence of overall restrictive covenants. There are, however, subtle differences. While non-solicitation covenants are subject to the same analysis, they are traditionally enforced more often, the rationale being that precluding the employee from soliciting or working on any account which the em­ployee had worked on previously, and particularly when that employee had no previous contact with that account, is far less onerous and anticompetitive than a more restric­tive preclusion against working at all.1

The governing jurisprudence, refined over time, posits that restrictive covenants are subject to careful judicial scrutiny and are governed by what the Court of Appeals described as an "overriding requirement of reasonable­ness."2 In the landmark case of BDO Seidman v. Hirsch­berg, decided in 1999, the New York Court of Appeals expounded upon the reasonableness standard as follows:

The modern, prevailing common-law standard of reasonableness for employee agreements not to compete applies a three-pronged test. A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is re­quired for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hard­ship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public.3

In applying this standard, "[c]ourts must weigh the need to protect the employer's legitimate business interests with the employee's concern regarding the possible loss of liveli­hood, a result strongly disfavored by public policy in New York."4 Although some nonsolicitation litigation focuses on the length of time of the covenant, or the geographic restrictions, the majority of the arguments between liti­gants, and hence what the Court must decipher, is whether the interest the employer seeks to protect is "legitimate" as required in the first prong of the test. A legitimate interest will, absent excessive duration or unique circumstances, usually lead to enforcement. While "legitimate business interests" seems at first blush like a wide category, in reality, legitimate business interests are limited under governing common law. In fact, "an employer may assert only four types of `legitimate interests':5 (1) protection of trade secrets; (2) protection of confidential customer information; (3) protection of an employer's client base; and (4) protection against irreparable harm where an employee's services are unique or extraordinary." This four part test is the lodestar of restrictive covenant analysis for the purposes of assessing the validity of nonsolicitation covenants. If there is no legitimate business interest, there can be no enforcement. The outlines of conflict become clear through the haze: the battle is joined as employers endeavor to show that the words of the applicable cov­enant are necessary to protect a legitimate interest, itself imperiled by the specific factual circumstances of the case at issue; the employee, naturally often seeks to attack the covenant as overbroad or unnecessary for any legitimate interest. Within this clash the courts have developed the jurisprudence analyzed in this article.

The four part test was originally, under Reed Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, a three part test. In Reed Roberts, the court recognized the "legitimate interest an employer has in safeguarding that which has made his business suc­cessful and to protect himself against deliberate surrepti­tious commercial piracy."6 Accordingly, the Court stated that restrictive covenants were enforceable to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets or customer confidential information, or where the employee's services are unique and extraordinary.7 Nowhere was the protection of the client base said to be a valid interest. Twenty-three years later, and perhaps in a nod to the diversifying knowledge economy roaring at the time, the Court of Appeals in BDO Seidman considered the reasonableness of an agree­ment requiring the departed employee to compensate the former employer for servicing certain clientele. The operative document was a Manager's Agreement in which the employee acknowledged that he would compensate BDO Seidman for any former clients he serviced while at his new employer. BDO urged that the court recognize its interest in protecting its entire customer base, claim­ing that it was entitled to the fees stated in the Manager's Agreement. While rejecting the expansive interest urged on it by the plaintiff employer – explored in detail in Section IX of this Article -- -the Court nonetheless added a fourth legitimate interest, holding that the employer "has a legitimate interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of a client or customer, which had been created and maintained at the employer's expense, to the employer's competitive detriment."8 The interest, importantly, is independent and distinct from the others: in BDO, the employee was neither unique nor, as the court noted, was there any "evidence that the employee obtained a competitive advantage by using confidential information."9

While the overall reasonableness test, therefore, was devised in the application of noncompetition covenants, it has found a home in analyzing nonsolicitation covenants as well. Of the four legitimate interests, it is the newest one – protection of an employer's client base, as added by the BDO court—which New York courts consistently utilize to uphold justified restraints on solicitation. The courts have held in general, that "whether viewed con­ceptually as a type of special service, an offshoot from an employer's interest in safeguarding customer information, or as a distinct cognizable interest, it is now clear that under New York law an employer also has a legitimate interest in protecting client relationships developed by an employee at the employer's expense."10 The rationale used by courts is that in certain circumstances, the potential adverse effect of the employee's exploitation of his or her relationships with clients on the employer's ability to retain the clients are sufficient to support the enforcement of a duly bargained for restriction. As the employer has made introductions and connections to clients, so the employer may legitimately contract to protect the rights to retain those relationships as property of the institution, not the departing individual. At a minimum, courts will consider the desire to retain the client's "goodwill" as a legitimate business interest.11

Yet even as the Court will find such legitimate interests, there are many situations where the facts of a specific dispute do not give rise to a protectable interest. It is to these differences that we turn.

IV. Does the Covenant Protect Specific Relationships?

The Courts will not simply find a legitimate interest in protecting all client relationships, which would stretch the test beyond that which was intended by the BDO court. 12 Given the restrictions of trade and hampering of the employee's free pursuit of his or her trade, the courts will looks to the quality and type of the relationships the employer is seeking to protect. Is the employer claiming a strong interest in even the most limited clientele?

While protection of customer relationships is a legiti­mate interest, for the relationship to be protectable the employee must have long-standing client relationships and her services must be "a significant part of the total transac­tion."13 As the BDO court stated, protection of the client base rises to a legitimate interest when "the employee must work closely with the client or customer over a long period of time, especially when his services are a significant part of the total transaction."14  Subsequent caselaw has supported this analysis. For example, the Northern District of New York in DS Parents Inc. v. Teich declined to find a protect­able interest in a nonsolicitation covenant prohibiting the departed employee from "soliciting [Plaintff] customers or clients", where most of the customers were "one-time purchasers", finding the customer relationships developed to be "of limited value."15 Stating that the relationships are "special and unique," as the plaintiff did in Teich, was insufficient: the plaintiff needed to "specify what made those relationships unique or valuable" and "personal."16 The interest, to be a valid one deserving of protection, has been described as requiring a "close business relation­ship...where the employee rendered specific substantive circumstances of a confidential nature,"17 which suggests that the implication of confidential information can be a trigger point to finding a protectable interest. This line of analysis is critical to assessing whether the customer relationship prong applies at all. Courts, in interpreting the direction of the BDO court, suggest that the signifi­cance of the business, the role of the individual sought to be restrained, and the repetitiveness of the customer is a factor in finding a protectable interest.18

To continue reading this article, please click here


1 As the Court stated in First Empire Securities, Inc. v. Miele, 2007 WL 28942345 at *5 (Sup. Ct. Suf­folk Cty. Aug. 10, 2007), "However, concern for the Respondent's right to earn a living does not immunize him from capitalizing on his acquain­tance with his former employer's customers or the favor he found for them, when a valid restrictive covenant concerning the non-solicitation of customers exists." (citations omitted). See also Renaissance Nutrition v. Jarrett, 2012 WL 42171 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2012), holding that a nonsolicita­tion covenant is enforceable as more reasonable than a noncompetition covenant because "Defen­dants are free, under this provision of the contract, to undertake any occupation they choose." ).

2 Reed Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 307, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 353 N.E.2d 590 (1976).

3 BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220, 1223 (1999).

4 Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. v. Batra, 430 F.Supp.2d 158, 177 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citation omitted)

5 BDO, 712 N.E.2d at 1224-25; Silipos v. Bickel, No. 05-cv-4356 (RCC), 2006 WL 2265055, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

6 Reed Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303 at 308.

7 Id.

8 BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 at 392.

9 Id. at 390, 391.

10 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. A.P.T. Critical Systems, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 525, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

11 See Kelly v. Evolution Markets Inc., 626 F. Supp. 2d 364, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("EvoMarkets' desire to protect its goodwill that it fostered with custom­ers constitutes a legitimate business interest"); DS Courier Services Inc. v. Seebarran, 40 A.D.3d 271, 272, 834 N.Y.S.2d 191, 192 (1st Dep't 2007) ("the covenant legitimately protects the goodwill that plaintiff had developed with certain of its customers").

12 Indeed, some courts have simply ignored the ad­dition of the client relationship prong altogether. See, e.g. Game Fitness Corp. v. Monzillo, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 30348(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County, Jan 26, 2010), which cited only the three part Reed Roberts test in refusing to enforce a nonsolicita­tion covenant.

13 BDO Seidman, 712 N.E.2d at 1224.

14 Id. 93 N.Y. at 391-92.

15 2014 WL 546358 at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014)

16 Id.

17 Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 813 F.Supp.2d 489, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); and Concord Limousine Inc. v. Orezzoli, 7 Misc. 3d 1026(A), 801 N.Y.S.2d 232 (Sup. Ct. Kings County May 20, 2005) ("the enforcement of such covenants on the basis of a close business relationship between the employee and the employer's customers is generally limited to instances where the defendant rendered specific substantive services of a confidential nature to the employer's customers").

18 See, e.g. Greystone Staffing, Inc. v. Goehringer, No. 13906-06, 2006 WL 3802202, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2006) (finding protectable interest where employee's "significant" relationships had allowed employer to "compete for and obtain the patronage and repeat business of its customers."); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v Transunion Holding Company, Inc., 2014 WL 97317 at *10 (S.D.N.Y., January 09, 2014) (finding no legitimate interest where the responsibilities of the employee were "primarily managerial and supervisory, rather than client-focused"); and Silipos, Inc. v. Bickell, 2006 WL 2265055 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006)(employee's sales activities, where he had "extensive, regular communications" with clients over a fourteen year period, were "significant enough to establish [Plaintiff's] legitimate interest").

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.