SubscribeAdd blog to your RSS feed
FeedbackWe'd like to hear from you
- Can Employers Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation? No, According to this Key Court
- Ex-General Counsel Dodged Privilege Claims Before $14.5 Million Verdict (pt 2)
- How Did This Ex-General Counsel Win $14.5 Million From His Former Employer? (pt 1)
- Beware the Deadlock: Delaware Courts Step in on Corporate Dysfunction
- Insider Trading and Related Risks for Executive Branch Employees: Pay Attention to the STOCK Act
- From New York and Delaware Courts, a Double Blow of Bad News for Sergey Aleynikov
- Headed for Overtime? Trump Administration Will Decide Fate of New Time-and-a-Half Rule
- A Closer Look at the New Lawsuit By Baylor Football Coach Art Briles
- Can an Employer Back out of a Promise to Provide Advancement by Claiming That the Employee Committed Fraud?
- Suits by Suits Named to Blawg 100
- "Key Man" Provisions
- After-Acquired Evidence
- Age Discrimination
- Arbitration and ADR
- Breach of Contract
- Campaign Finance
- Change-in-Control Provisions
- Civil Litigation
- Data Security
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Equal Pay
- Executive Compensation
- Family Medical Leave
- Fiduciary Duties
- Fifth Amendment
- First Amendment
- Government Employers and Employees
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Intellectual Property
- Monthly Roundup
- Motions to Dismiss
- Noncompete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Preliminary Injunction
- Religious Discrimination
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Section 1983
- Severance Agreements
- Social Media
- Statutes of limitations
- Summary Judgment
- Termination With or Without Cause
- The Basics
- The Inbox
- The Yates Memo
- Title VII
- Trade Secrets
- Vicarious Liability
- Wage and Hour
- White Collar Crime
- Workplace Conditions (Occupational Safety and Health)
- Wrongful Termination
Blogs We Like:
The AmLaw Daily
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
The D&O Diary
Delaware Employment Law Blog
DeNovo: A Virginia Appellate Law Blog
The Employer Handbook
Executive Pay Matters
The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog
Grand Jury Target
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home: What You Need To Know Before You Scream “I Quit,” Get Fired, Or Decide to Sue the Bastards
Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
WSJ Law Blog
More on Non-Competes in Florida: Defining the “Legitimate Business Interest”
In researching and writing Monday’s blog post, I came across another unique wrinkle in the Florida statute that governs covenants not to compete, § 542.335 of the Florida Statutes. I think it's worth examining that provision in more detail as part of our ongoing efforts to educate employers and employees as to the varying state-by-state nuances in different jurisdictions that can affect the ultimate questions as to whether and how that state will enforce an employee’s covenant not to compete.
You may recall from Monday’s post that a New York appellate court recently held that the Florida statute was “truly obnoxious” to the public policy of New York and therefore would not apply to a lawsuit brought in that state – even though both regimes ostensibly follow the LBI test common to the overwhelming majority of U.S. states. Essentially, the New York appellate court concluded that Florida statute was too friendly to employers (and, by extension, too harsh on employees) by specifically excluding any consideration of individualized hardship and by requiring that the clause be construed in favor of enforcement.
However – as is often the case in noncompete law – the full picture isn’t quite so one-sided. Today, we’re going to look at an aspect of the Florida statute that uniquely favors employees by providing them another avenue by which to challenge the enforcement of an otherwise-valid noncompete clause. We take our cue from the case cited briefly on Monday: Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc., 844 So.2d 792, 795 (Fla. DCA, 4th Dist. 2003), which dealt with subsection (1)(b) of the Florida statute.
The employer at issue in Passalacqua, Naviant, is a provider of third party “opt-in e-mail marketing services” to companies that sell goods and services over the Internet. 844 So.2d at 793. Naviant hired Passalaqua in 2002 and required him to sign a two year non-compete agreement which specified that he would not “engage in a business in the continental United States that is the same or similar” to Naviant’s. Id. at 794. Notwithstanding the clause, Passalaqua left Naviant after just a few weeks on the job to start up a direct competitor to Naviant, which he called “E-Mail Analytics, Inc.” Id. at 793-94. Naviant sued Passalacqua and won at the trial court level; that court issued an injunction prohibiting E-Mail Analytics from “engaging in competition” with Naviant. Id. at 794.
However, on appeal, the Florida appellate court reversed, holding that Naviant had failed to comply with § 542.335(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes, which requires that:
(b) The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant.
The statute goes on to define LBI as including (but not limited to): (1) trade secrets, (2) valuable confidential business or professional information; (3) substantial customer relationships; (4) goodwill such as a recognizable trademark or trade name; and (5) “extraordinary or specialized training.” Id. Finally, that subsection concludes that any noncompete clause “not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable.” Id.
The appellate court in Passalacqua then held that Naviant had failed to meet its statutory burden of pleading and proving a legitimate business interest. Specifically, the court rejected Naviant’s testimony that it had developed a “unique methodology” for developing customers, holding that the company failed to “articulate how any activity, method or technique utilized by Naviant was unique or proprietary in any way. Nor did [Naviant] give any reason to believe that the manual was anything but a compilation of widely known and commonly used sales techniques.” Passalacqua, 844 So.2d at 796.
We can’t know how Naviant and Passalacqua might have fared had this lawsuit been brought in New York (or Connecticut, or Maryland, or any other LBI jurisdiction). What we do know, however, is that in those states, the interests of the employer is typically just one of many factors the court will attempt to balance in evaluating the enforceability of the clause instead of a mandatory prerequisite which the employer “shall plead and prove” as a threshold matter.
What this means in practical terms is that an employer with even a minimal interest to be protected might be statutorily prohibited from enforcing its noncompete in Florida, but might well succeed in enforcing the exact same clause – on the exact same facts – in a different LBI jurisdiction (such as New York), so long as the overall burden on the employee was comparatively small. (Naviant’s two-year, nationwide noncompete almost certainly wouldn’t qualify, but that’s not really the point.)
As a result, it’s an oversimplification of Monday’s post to conclude that New York’s LBI regime is pro-employee and Florida’s tilts towards employers. Rather, the point is that even though both states have roughly the same law, the specifics of that law can be applied in ways that result in a noncompete clause’s enforcement in one jurisdiction but not in another. Knowing those differences is the key.