United States: For Your Consideration: Recent State-To-State Developments On Sufficient Consideration For Employee Non-Compete Agreements

The various laws, statutes, and policies governing non-compete agreements are nuanced, inconsistent, and sometimes downright contradictory from state-to-state. The issue of consideration is no different. Like other contracts, non-compete and restrictive covenant agreements must be supported by adequate and sufficient consideration at the time of execution. However, what constitutes adequate consideration for a restrictive covenant, especially a non-compete provision, varies from state to state. And, more importantly, the concept of adequate consideration has shifted in recent years reflecting an increasingly strict approach to enforcing non-compete agreements post-employment.

Traditionally, in most states, when a restrictive covenant is executed as part of an employment agreement at the outset of the employment relationship, the offer of initial and continued employment was generally considered adequate consideration for entering into the covenant. However, this issue has become more complicated in recent years, particularly for at-will employees. Additionally, courts have further complicated the consideration issue in situations where employers ask existing employees to sign agreements "midstream" of employment.

This blog discusses the varying state laws regarding sufficient consideration for non-compete agreements signed at both the outset and during employment as well as other recent attacks on non-competes and restrictive covenants generally.

Validity of Non-Competes with At-Will Employees Signed at Outset of Employment

State and federal courts across the country are increasingly scrutinizing non-competes entered into with at-will employees. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Missouri illustrates this quandary and underscores the potential change in tide in this area. In Durrell v. Tech Electronics, Inc., the plaintiff employee sought a declaratory judgment, among other claims, that his non-compete was invalid because continued at-will employment was not sufficient consideration under Missouri law. Tech Electronics moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that at-will employment constituted sufficient consideration for the non-compete and the employee should be held to the agreement's terms.

The court denied Tech Electronic's motion as it related to the non-compete and held that "[a]n offer of at-will employment, or the continuation of at-will employment, is simply not a source of consideration under Missouri contract law." 2016 WL 6696070, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2016) (internal citations omitted). In coming to this conclusion, the court relied on a string of Missouri state court cases holding that at-will employment is not valid consideration in the context of arbitration agreements. The court cited Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc.'s holding that with at-will employment, "the employer makes no legally enforceable promise to do or refrain from doing anything that it is not already entitled to do. The employer can still terminate the employee immediately for any reason." 450 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Mo. 2014). Thus, according to the Durrell court, something other than continued employment is required for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable. Notably, the plaintiff employee was employed for twenty-two years before leaving the company, and, yet, this was still not sufficient.

So, what is sufficient consideration in Missouri? The Durrell court pointed to JumboSack Corp. v. Buyck, 407 S.W.3d 51, 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). In JumboSack, a Missouri Court of Appeals determined, among other things, whether a former employee's non-compete agreement was supported by adequate consideration. Whether or not continued employment sufficed was not at issue or argued by either side. Instead, the defendant employer argued that access to its customers over a five-year period constituted sufficient consideration for the post-employment non-compete. Importantly, the court stated that "Missouri courts have recognized that continued at-will employment constitutes consideration for a non-compete where the employer allows the employee by virtue of his employment, to have continued access to its protectable assets and relationships." Id. at 56 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). JumboSack indicates that, at least in Missouri, demonstrable continued access to the company's protectable assets, such as customers or information, may constitute sufficient consideration for an at-will non-compete.

Missouri courts are not alone in taking the position that initial and continued at-will employment does not constitute sufficient consideration for a non-compete. In 2013, an Illinois Appellate Court decided Fifield v. Premier Dealership Servs., 933 N.E.2d 938 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). This decision significantly impacted non-competes in Illinois because the court ruled that the promise of "at-will" employment alone is insufficient consideration to support a valid non-compete covenant under Illinois law. The court held that where there is no additional, independent consideration, two or more years of continued employment is required to constitute adequate consideration to support such a covenant, and thus created a "bright-line" rule which has impacted Illinois cases ever since. Fifield served as a blow to employers who rely on initial employment as consideration for entering into post-employment restrictive covenants and generally undermined the enforceability of such agreements. The Illinois Supreme Court has yet to definitively rule on this issue and federal courts continue to issue inconsistent decisions. See, e.g., Montel Aetnastak, Inc. v. Miessen, 998 F. Supp. 2d 694 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (declining to apply Fifield's two-year rule); Instant Tech., LLC v. Defazio, 40 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (applying Fifield); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Miller, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14337 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2015) (rejecting Fifield in favor of a fact-based analysis).

In light of the unsettled nature of the at-will consideration issue, Illinois employers should consider providing additional consideration for non-competes for at-will employees, such as a signing bonus, to strengthen the enforceability of the agreement overall. It is unclear whether access to confidential information, customer relationships or other protectable interests would constitute sufficient consideration under post-Fifield law in Illinois, as in Missouri under JumboSack.

Interestingly, the Fifield court's reasoning may well have saved the non-compete in Durrell as the employee was employed for well over two years, if the case had been heard in Illinois. Yet, in Missouri, the employee's tenure apparently had no impact on the court's analysis. These two cases illustrate the nuanced differences from state to state as it relates to non-competes and restrictive covenants generally.

Consideration Required for Existing Employees

Even though many states will consider continued employment at the outset of the employment relationship sufficient consideration for an at-will non-compete, some states require additional consideration beyond continued employment for non-competes entered into after the employment relationship has started. Specifically, courts in North Carolina, Montana, South Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have expressly held that continued employment is insufficient consideration to support a non-compete entered into midstream of employment. Additional consideration, such as a raise, a change in duties, a promotion, or a bonus, must be provided with the new non-compete.

For example, in 2008, the Montana Supreme Court held that "past consideration cannot serve as good consideration for a present agreement." Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez, 175 P.3d 899, 904 (Mont. 2008). Similarly, in North Carolina, "a covenant entered into after an employment relationship already exists must be supported by new consideration, such as a raise in pay or a new job assignment." Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Tart, 955 F. Supp. 547, 553 (W.D.N.C. 1997). Yet in both these states, initial continued employment is generally sufficient for non-competes entered into at the outset of the relationship. Such differing law is particularly challenging for a company reviewing existing restrictive covenant agreements and considering issuance of a revised agreement to both new and existing employees. To ensure maximum enforceability, the company must determine whether some form of additional consideration is required for existing employees and/or new hires.

In other states, such as Massachusetts, New Mexico and West Virginia, this issue has not been decided and employers are left with little definitive guidance. Other jurisdictions, such as Kentucky and the District of Columbia, confuse the issue even more where case law suggests continued employment may be sufficient consideration for mid-stream non-competes if the employee remains employed for a significant amount of time or the at-will relationship is otherwise altered in some way. See Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345, 354 (Ky. 2014); Ellis v. James V. Hurson Assocs., 565 A.2d 615, 4 IER Cases 1505 (D.C. Ct. App. 1989).

In short, whether or not continued employment constitutes adequate and sufficient consideration for non-competes varies from state to state and even court to court. It is critical to carefully evaluate both the consideration provided to employees as a basis for non-compete agreements and the law of the jurisdiction governing the agreement to ensure the agreement is valid and enforceable.

Other Attacks on Non-Competes

Heightened consideration requirements are not the only way states and courts are cracking down on non-competes across the country. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma already generally prohibit non-competes. Illinois recently passed the Freedom to Work Act, which prohibits employers from entering into non-compete agreements with "low-wage employees." See our previous blog post on this subject here. In 2016, the White House commissioned a study of non-compete agreements and recommended limitations such as banning non-competes for low-wage workers, requiring consideration beyond continued employment, and prohibiting enforcement of non-competes for employees who are laid-off or terminated without cause. It is unclear how the new administration will view non-compete and restrictive covenant issues. Additionally, a new bill recently introduced in the Nevada legislature proposes to severely restrict non-competes by limiting the term to no more than three months and imposing fines and penalties (including potential misdemeanors) on companies for non-compliance with the proposed statutory terms. The bill can be found here.

Stay tuned as courts and legislatures continue to closely scrutinize restrictive covenants across the country. While it is difficult to balance the ever-changing and often disparate landscape of non-competes and restrictive covenants from state to state and court to court, companies should carefully audit their use of such agreements.

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
13 Sep 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Liisa will be giving opening remarks and presenting, "Big Data and Online Behavioral Advertising (OBA): An Advertiser’s Perspective Origins of big data and how to legally acquire data."

20 Sep 2018, Seminar, Los Angeles, United States

The annual seminar addressing changes and developments in state and federal wage and hour laws is a unique one-day program and hundreds of California employers, personnel managers, controllers, attorneys, payroll managers, and supervisors attend each year.

26 Sep 2018, Seminar, San Francisco, United States

Please join us for Sheppard Mullin's Labor & Employment Law Update & Happy Hour Seminar Series.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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