Restrictive Covenants

Restrictive covenants are provisions frequently found in employment agreements that are meant to protect an employer’s competitive advantage or legitimate business interest. Employers include restrictive covenants in employment agreements to protect their investment in training their employees and to prevent former employees from taking clients and trade secrets to a competitor. A Chicago compete agreement lawsuit attorney at our firm can help you understand the role of these instruments.

Although restrictive covenants have been in existence for more than 100 years, they have become increasingly widespread in recent years. Employers utilizing restrictive covenants include retail companies, data companies, and even colleges. Courts are continually changing how they examine restrictive covenants and in what circumstances restrictive covenants are enforceable. Whether you are an employer who wants to protect your company’s trade secrets and clientele or an employee who is subject to one or more restrictive covenants, it is crucial to have an attorney with experience in this area of law. Our business attorneys have decades of experience both drafting restrictive covenants and litigating the issues of validity and enforceability of such agreements.

Two of the most common types of restrictive covenants are non-compete agreements and confidentiality or non-solicitation agreements.

Non-Compete Agreements

A “non-compete agreement” (also known as a "non-competition agreement" or a “covenant not to compete”) is a contract which limits an employee’s ability to own or work for a competitor for a specified period of time. The law recognizes that an employer has a right to protect its investments and legitimate business interests but also that employees have a right to work when and where they choose. Non-compete agreements are different from regular contracts because they have the effect of inhibiting commerce and limiting an individual’s ability to earn a living in the same industry in which he has been working. Public policy disfavors contracts inhibiting commerce or limiting individual’s ability to be productive members of society.

Because of the unique nature of non-compete agreements, most states are reluctant to enforce an outright ban on working for a competitor. Accordingly, judges will generally consider the following factors when determining if a non-compete agreement is enforceable:

Non-solicitation Agreements

A “non-solicitation agreement” or a "non-solicitation clause" typically has the goal of protecting the company’s clients or other employees. When an employee leaves, employers consider it important to the health of the company not to have their former employee taking clients or other employees to a competitor.

Courts are more sympathetic to these types of restrictive covenants because they do not necessarily restrict an employee’s ability to work. That being said, non-solicitation agreements must still be reasonable to be considered enforceable. Our compete agreement lawsuit lawyers can advise Chicago clients on whether an agreement is likely to be deemed reasonable. As with non-compete agreements, courts apply the “totality of circumstances” test to determine if a confidentiality/non-solicitation agreement is reasonable and enforceable.

There are also other factors separate from the language contained in a restrictive covenant—such as whether the employee was terminated that can affect its enforceability. The point is that the enforceability of restrictive covenants is complex and even a well-drafted restrictive covenant is not enforceable in every situation. For employees, this is a good thing because often they sign employment agreements without reading through the entire contract and may later be accused of violating restrictive covenants they didn’t even know they’d entered. For employers, this is a warning to draft restrictive covenants carefully to improve their chances of enforceability and to consult a knowledgeable attorney before taking any action such as terminating an employee subject to restrictive covenants.

Often, the employers themselves aren't fully aware of what’s in their restrictive covenants. This can happen when a restrictive covenant is drafted broadly and one-sidely in an attempt to cover all an employer’s bases. While broad, general language may be appealing, many courts require specificity for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable.

In certain cases, employees and employers can negotiate the terms or modification of their restrictive covenants. The key is to find common ground which allows both parties to get what they want.

When drafting, negotiating, or enforcing a restrictive covenant, it is vital to have a skilled and knowledgeable attorney with experience dealing with restrictive covenants. The Chicago compete agreement lawsuit lawyers at Lubin Austermuehle, P.C. have decades of experience negotiating restrictive covenants and litigating disputes over restrictive covenants. For employees, they can assist you in negotiating a prospective restrictive covenant, ensure your decisions are informed by explaining the potential risks and liabilities of entering a restrictive covenant, inform you of the risks, or advise you as to the plausibility of your former employer’s claim. For employers, they can draft restrictive covenants or analyze existing restrictive covenants using the factors employed by courts. To get compete agreement lawsuit attorneys in the Chicago area who have all the latest information on restrictive covenants, contact us online today or call us at 630-333-0333.

Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog - Restrictive Covenants
Client Reviews
"I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service." Sebastian R.
"I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle." Kurt A.
"Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers!" Albey L.
"I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins." Christopher G.
"Peter and his team helped us with an auto fraud case. They communicated well (timely and very responsive), investigated deeply, and negotiated a very good settlement. We were able to resolve our significant issue without a large burden and in a manner that allowed for us to come out ahead. I'd recommend Peter and his team strongly!" R.J. Callahan
"Peter was really nice and helpful when I came to him with an initial question about a non-compete. Would definitely reach out again, recommended to everyone." Johannes B.