Employment Law Archives - Texas Noncompete Law

Jan 16, 2026 | By Robert Wood | Read Time: 4 minutes | #Employment Law

Texas Executive Employment Agreements: Checklist for Employees

Employees signing employment agreements in Texas should be mindful of the following potential terms: Key Points Check term/termination language and compensation details, since vague “cause” definitions can favor the employer. Noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses must be reasonable and backed by real consideration, so confirm duration, geography, and restricted activities. Also review change-in-control terms, arbitration requirements, and governing law/venue. 1....

Jan 14, 2016 | By Robert Wood | Read Time: 2 minutes | #Employment Law

Borrowed Servant Doctrine: Risks Associated with Asserting Control

Temporary workers (“temps”) are a part of many businesses. Some companies use temps to fill a void left while an employee is on leave, others utilize temps in determining whether or not to offer a permanent position, and still others have temps as part of their everyday business functions. No matter what the reason is, when you bring a...

Apr 23, 2007 | By Robert Wood | Read Time: < 1 minute | #Employment Law

Texas Right to Work State. Myth and Reality

I often hear from employees who are bound by non-compete agreements that “Texas is a right-to-work state,” and that, therefore, their agreements are unenforceable. Not true. The “right to work” concept has NOTHING to do with non-compete agreements. Rather, the “right to work” concept has to do with the right of employees to decide for themselves whether they will...

Oct 13, 2006 | By Robert Wood | Read Time: < 1 minute | #Employment Law

Texas Employee Raiding Provisions Overview

A provision prohibiting an employee from soliciting his former employer’s remaining employees must meet the requirements applicable to noncompete agreements. Trying to attract workers constitutes fair competition (unless it is unfair, as it might be if an employee raiding provision prohibits it, or if doing so constitutes tortious interference).