Last week, a federal court in Texas refused to enforce a company’s non-compete agreement against four key employees who started a competing business because the agreement was missing a key term – the end date. The above situation can be avoided through simple practice of: (1) knowing what is in the company non-compete agreements; (2) making sure all the key provisions required by the relevant statutes are included; and (3) periodically updating non-compete agreements so that they are compliant with the relevant state law.
A good non-solicitation and confidentiality agreement, combined with other key provisions, and smart business practices, can deter client poaching and preserve the relationship between the salon and its clients even in the face of its employees’ departure.
The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), enacted by the legislature in 2011, has been wrecking havoc in business and employment disputes due to the statute’s overbroad language, confusing and conflicting interpretation by the various courts of appeals and federal courts, and defendants’ persistence in invoking the statute’s dismissal process in trade secrets and non-compete lawsuits.
The courts around the country seem to agree that the more “passive” the social media activity is, the less likely it is to constitute a prohibited solicitation of customers or employees, and the more “active” the posts are or the more akin they are to oral solicitations, the more likely they are to violate non-solicitation prohibitions. In this post, I take a closer look at the various decisions from across the country and synthesize common themes.
In Part I, I described requirements for non-compete agreements in Texas. In Part II, I describe the common mistakes that employers make when it comes to non-compete agreements.
In Texas, non-compete agreements are generally enforceable if they meet certain requirements. Specifically, they must be: (1) part of an otherwise enforceable agreement, (2) reasonable,