Matt Worley, Esq.
Back in June I wrote an article
about the importance of careful drafting of non-compete agreements for key employees: 2014/06/drafting-non-compete-clauses-to-ensure.html. A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision
illustrates this point perfectly. Generally,
these agreements not to compete are enforceable when they protect the
employer’s reasonable competitive business interests and when they are
reasonable in duration, geographical scope, and line of business.
In September, the Court of
Appeals struck down a non-compete clause that prohibited the former employee
from working for any company that “makes or sells any products competitive with
a product offered by the company.” While
this may sound like typical language in a non-compete clause, the Michigan
Court of Appeals determined it to be overly broad and unenforceable.
In that case, Defendant was a
former employee of Plaintiff who resigned to go work for another company. Both companies manufactured and sold
“material handling equipment,” i.e. conveyor equipment. Plaintiff argued that Mr. Sparling violated
his two year non-compete by working for a competitor, Lewco.
The court held that the
non-compete was unenforceable because it prohibited defendant from working for
any company that offers even a single
product that is “competitive” with a product offered by plaintiff. This prohibited defendant from working for any company that is even in remote competition with plaintiff, and
was therefore unreasonably restrictive.
The court went even further and held
that Lewco was not even a competitor of plaintiff. It reasoned that because Lewco sold primarily
standard conveyor equipment, whereas plaintiff sold specialized and custom
conveyor equipment, they were not competitors.
This recent case is Huron Technology Corp v Albert Sparling,
Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion No. 316133,
This case demonstrates how
imperative it is to carefully draft contract language in non-compete
agreements. The language in this case
was so similar to what is commonly used, but slightly tweaked, and the effect
of that change is that the court found it unreasonably restrictive and
unenforceable.
If you own a business and are concerned about protecting your interests,
contact the business law and litigation experts at Fausone Bohn, LLP to assist
you with drafting your business contracts.
You can reach me at 248/380.3312 or by email at mworley@fb-firm.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment