Texas Noncompete Agreements Attorney: Permissible Scope of Nonsolicitation Agreements in Texas

Not infrequently, non-solicitation agreements that employers require their employees to sign are extremely broad. These provisions often preclude the employee from soliciting all of her former employer’s customers. Sometimes, the provisions also preclude the employee from soliciting her former employer’s potential customers.

A recent case involved the following non-solicitation provision:

Accordingly, the Executive understands and agrees that for a period of two (2) years following the termination of his employment for any reason whatsoever, he will not, directly or indirectly, solicit, place, market, accept, aid, counsel or consult in the renewal, discontinuance or replacement of any insurance (including self-insurance) by, or handle self-insurance programs, insurance claims, risk management services or other insurance administrative or service functions for, any AJG or Corporation account for which he performed any of the foregoing functions during the two-year period immediately preceding such termination. (emphasis supplied)

Unlike a “blanket” non-solicitation provision applying to all of the employer’s customers, this one only prohibited the former employee (an insurance broker) from soliciting and doing business with customers for whom he personally worked during his final two years with his employer. The provision was narrowly tailored to the customers to whom the employer could point and say, “You would have an unfair competitive advantage if you were allowed to work with that customer. Thus, you shouldn’t be allowed to do so.”

The court enforced this provision against the former employee. In doing so, the court noted that many Texas courts have enforced non-solicitation provisions to prevent former employees from taking advantage of their relationships with the particular clients with whom they dealt while working for their former employer. The court explained: “A number of courts have held that a non-compete covenant that is limited to the employee’s clients is a reasonable alternative to a geographical limit.”

Obviously, it would be too simplistic to say that a non-solicitation provision narrowly tailored to the customers serviced by the employee in question is automatically enforceable. Each case must be judged on its own facts, taking into account factors such as the consideration given by the employer in exchange for the promise not to solicit. But some Texas courts have enforced such narrowly-tailored provisions.

 

www.felllawfirm.com

Texas Non-Compete Law. Enforcement of Non-Solicitation Agreements in Texas

A recent appellate case from Houston demonstrates that, in determining whether non-solicitation agreements are enforceable, Texas courts treat them as non-compete agreements.

In the case, an insurance broker was bound by an employment agreement that contained the following provision:

Accordingly, the Executive understands and agrees that for a period of two (2) years following the termination of his employment for any reason whatsoever, he will not, directly or indirectly, solicit, place, market, accept, aid, counsel or consult in the renewal, discontinuance or replacement of any insurance (including self-insurance) by, or handle self-insurance programs, insurance claims, risk management services or other insurance administrative or service functions for, any AJG or Corporation account for which he performed any of the foregoing functions during the two-year period immediately preceding such termination.

The broker left his employer and began working for a competitor. Shortly thereafter, the broker was sued by his former employer.

Obviously, the above provision is broader than a simple non-solicitation provision, because rather than prohibiting mere solicitation, it also prohibits the insurance broker from doing business with his former customers. Given how broad this provision is, the broker is deprived of one of the best arguments that defendants in non-solicitation cases usually have—i.e., “I didn’t solicit the customers—they contacted me!” This provision is so broad that it doesn’t matter who initiated the contact.

The court in this case enforced the above provision against the former employee. In doing so, the court examined the provision just as it would examine a non-compete agreement. That is, the court held the non-solicitation provision to the same rigorous enforcement standards to which it would have held a non-compete agreement. The court required the non-solicitation provision to be “ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement.” In other posts, we will explain what that means. 

But the takeaway from this post is this: Non-solicitation provisions are essentially non-compete provisions. Unlike non-disclosure agreements, which are enforceable in most all circumstances because they simply keep employees from doing what they shouldn’t do anyway (i.e., they prohibit use and disclosure of the former employer’s trade secrets), non-solicitation provisions restrain competition. Because they do so, they must be put under the same microscope that is used to assess the enforceability of a non-compete agreement.

 

www.felllawfirm.com