Are Non-Compete Agreements Enforceable in Texas?

kkGenerally, Texas allows non-compete agreements between employers and employees as long as they are reasonable in scope, geographic area, and term, and meet a few other requirements. See my previous posts about those requirements here, here, and here

Practically speaking, however, whether a particular non-compete agreement is valid depends heavily on the exact language used in the agreement.  Just as with any other contract, Texas courts will usually look at the precise language of a particular employment agreement to determine what the parties had in mind when they entered into it. 

Last year, a hospitalist group in Houston learned the above principles the hard way when it attempted to enforce a non-compete covenant against a physician who went to work for a competitor and discovered that the non-compete did not prohibit the physician from doing so. 

In Tummalla et. al. v. Total Inpatient Services, P.A., the non-compete clause between the hospitalist group and the physician stated the following:

6.2 NonCompete. In consideration for the access to the Confidential Information provided by [TIPS] and in order to enforce the Physician’s Agreement regarding such Confidential Information, Physician agrees that he/she shall not, during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year from the date this Agreement expires pursuant to Section 8.3 or is terminated by Physician pursuant to Section 8.6 (the “Restriction Period”), without the prior written consent of [TIPS], except in the performance of duties for [TIPS] pursuant to this Agreement, directly or indirectly within any Hospital in the Service Area or any other hospital in which the Physician practiced on behalf of [TIPS], in excess of 40 hours, within his last year of employment with [TIPS]:
6.2.1 Provide services as a hospitalist physician to any entity that offers inpatient hospital and emergency department services.
In a separate provision in the same agreement, however, it stated that the physician’s first 12 months on the job were to be considered an “introductory period” during which either party could terminate the employment relationship for any reason. The specific paragraph stated that it applied notwithstanding any other provision in the agreement and it failed to included or mention any non-compete restrictions. 

The court of appeals analyzed these various clauses in the contract and concluded that because the physician terminated his employment with the hospitalist group within the first year, i.e. the “introductory period,” the post-employment non-compete clause did not apply to him. Thus, he was free to compete with his former employer. 

TAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers should have a qualified attorney draft and/or review their non-compete agreements.  While there are many forms out there, because non-compete agreements in Texas have to be catered towards each employer’s business and because courts will scrutinize the language when determining whether to enforce the agreement or not, using a standard form may result in the employer not being able to enforce it due to gaps in the language or failure to address specific termination situations.

TAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYEES:  Signing a non-compete agreement without reading it first can result in a major headache down the road and severely limit employee’s career options.  Therefore, employees should always: (1) read the agreement; (2) request a clarification if something is not clear; and (3) keep a copy of the signed agreement for their records.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits in a variety of industries, and has advised hundreds of clients regarding non-compete and trade secret issues. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

A Texas Company Loses a Non-Compete Battle Against California Employees

Texas-vs-CaliforniaCalifornia and Texas differ in many respects, including how they treat non-compete agreements.  While Texas enforces non-compete restraints that are reasonable, California has declared such agreements unenforceable.  Recently, a company headquartered in Texas attempted to enforce its non-compete agreements against two California employees.  The agreements specifically stated that they “shall be governed and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Texas,” that the company is based in Irving, Texas, and that the agreements are to be partially performed in in Irving, Texas. Despite this language, the trial court and then the Dallas Court of Appeals applied California law and ruled the agreements unenforceable in Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, LLC v. Caporicci, et al.

The Court of Appeals explained that in a situation like this, where two states have a relationship with the parties and the transaction, i.e., employment, it will apply the law of the state that has “clearly more significant” relationship to the parties and the transaction. The court then concluded that the relationship to California was more significant than to Texas because: (1) both men interviewed for the jobs in California; (2) completed their employment agreements and the jobs in California; (3) the employees lived in California and traveled to Texas infrequently; and (4) the gist of their employment agreements was performance of services in California.

The Court of Appeals also looked at whether California or Texas had a “materially greater interest” in determining whether the non-compete agreements were enforceable.  Although the company was based in Texas, the two employees performed services in California, and after they left the company, it had to close its California offices.  Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals concluded that while Texas shared a general interest in “protecting the justifiable expectations of entities doing business in several states, that [did] not outweigh California’s interests in this case.”

Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that the enforcement of the non-compete agreements would be contrary to a “fundamental policy of California,” which was the final nail in the coffin of the company’s argument that the agreements should be enforced under Texas law.

Takeway:  Although a company may state in its employment agreement that the law of a certain state will apply, Texas courts may choose to apply the law of another state if that state has a more significant relationship with the parties or the employment agreements.  The legal analysis depends on a multitude of factors and will vary depending on where the company is located, where its employees are located, what their job functions are, as well as the public policy of the other states in question.  Texas companies that have employees in other states should keep that in mind when hiring or recruiting executives in other states.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and has advised hundreds of clients regarding non-compete and trade secret issues. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 939-4458.

Non-Compete Agreements – Good or Evil? The US Government Says They Are Both.

kkIn March 2016, the Office of Economic Policy of the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a report titled Non-Compete Contracts: Economic Effects and Policy Implications.”  According to the report, an estimated 18% of all workers, or nearly 30 million people, are covered by non-compete agreements.  The purpose of the report was to determine the economic effects of non-competes.

According to the Department of Treasury, the benefits of non-competes are:

(1) Non-competes are sometimes used to protect trade secrets, which can promote innovation.

(2) By reducing the probability of worker exit, non-competes may increase employers’ incentives to provide costly training.

(3) Employers with especially high turnover costs could use non-competes to match with workers who have a low desire to switch jobs in the future.

The downside of non-competes includes the following:

(1) employees’ bargaining power is reduced after they sign non-competes, possibly resulting in wage stagnation;

(2) sometimes, because of non-compete constraints, employees are force to leave their occupations loosing the benefit of training and experience they had gained in their fields;

(3) reduced job turnover may lead to labor market stagnation;

The report concluded that non-competes are often used by employers in non-transparent ways:

(1) Many workers do not realize when they accept a job that they have signed a non-compete, or they do not understand its implications.

(2) Many workers are asked to sign a non-compete only after accepting a job offer. One lower-bound estimate is that 37 percent of workers are in this position.

(3) Many firms ask workers to sign non-competes that are entirely or partly unenforceable in certain jurisdictions, suggesting that firms may be relying on a lack of worker knowledge. For instance, California workers are bound by non-competes at a rate slightly higher than the national average (19 percent), despite the fact that, with limited exceptions, non-competes are not enforced in that state.

Non-Competes and Trade Secrets

Only 24 percent of workers report that they possess trade secrets. Moreover, less than half of workers who have non-competes also report possessing trade secrets, suggesting that trade secrets cannot explain the majority of non-compete activity.

Non-competes are common among workers who report lower rates of trade secret possession: 15 percent of workers without a four-year college degree are subject to non-competes, and 14 percent of workers earning less than $40,000 have non-competes. This is true even though workers without four-year degrees are half as likely to possess trade secrets as those with four-year degrees, and workers earning less than $40,000 possess trade secrets at less than half the rate of their higher-earning counterparts.

Available evidence suggests that workers with a low initial desire to switch jobs are not more likely to match with employers who require non-competes.

In some cases, non-competes prevent workers from finding new employment even after being fired without cause; in such cases, it is difficult to believe that non-competes yield social benefits.

State Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreements

States vary greatly in the manner and degree to which they will enforce non-competes.

In some states, non-compete enforcement is determined by statute, while in others it is determined exclusively by case law. 

Some states refuse to enforce non-competes, or refuse to enforce non-competes that contain any unenforceable provisions (“red-pencil” doctrine), although a majority of states will modify overbroad non-compete contracts to render them enforceable (“bluepencil” and “equitable reform” doctrines).

Texas Non-Compete Agreements

In Texas, non-compete agreements are governed by a statute and must meet certain requirements to be enforceable.  When drafted properly, they are enforceable. However, a lot of times, they are not drafted correctly, which means that they would not hold up in court.  You can see my previous posts regarding Texas non-competes here, here and here

The Report Recommendations

Employers should increase transparency in the offering of non-competes; use enforceable non-compete contracts; and provide “consideration” to workers bound by non-compete contracts in exchange for both signing and abiding by non-competes.

Takeway: According to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s report, non-competes and how they are being used by employers across the country present some problems for employees and the labor market in general. Considering that every 5th person is under a non-compete restrictions, these problems are wide-spread. Employers and employees in Texas will both benefit from reasonable and enforceable non-compete agreements. 

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and has advised hundreds of clients regarding non-compete and trade secret issue. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

Fair v. Unfair Competition, or the Real Life Case of Globo Gym v. Average Joes

DodgeballWhile we patiently wait for a sequel to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story to come out, a similar saga involving competing gym/spa establishments has been unfolding in Houston, Texas (minus the dodge ball tournament and shiny singlets) recently culminating in a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. 

In this lawsuit, Life Time Fitness sued its former regional vice president, his wife, who also worked for Life Time Fitness at various times, and their newly formed company – ReNew You LLC – alleging that the VP “pilfered” proprietary business information, duplicated Life Time’s business model, and used company personnel to open a competing business.  Life Time filed the complaint on January 16th and four days later obtained a temporary injunction order against the defendants ordering ReNew You to cease and desist all operations and barring it from offering or providing services provided by Life Time.  In sum, Life Time has succeeded in shutting down ReNew You for now. 

The complaint alleges that while working for Life Time, the VP used Life Time’s technology system, email and his personal assistant to:

(1) draft and revise detailed business plans, agendas and checklists for his new company;

(2) build proformas, budgets, forecast and financial models for his new company based on Life Time’s proformas, etc.;

(3) obtain quotes for or leasing equipment for ReNew You;

(4) develop logos for ReNew You;

(5) develop a website for ReNew You;

(6) negotiate a partnership agreement with his partner in ReNew You.

Life Time also alleged that the VP “egregiously and surreptitiously” breached the non-compete agreement by using Life Time’s time, resources, computers, proprietary information and employees to build the medi-spa and weight-loss business less than four miles away from one of Life Time’s facilities.

While the complaint doesn’t specify how Life Time eventually found out about the VP’s activities, it is clear that the VP was using Life Time’s email address to send much of communications related to establishing ReNew You.  Apparently, the VP was also using his Life Time computer to create and edit many of the ReNew You documents.  It is alleged that he also used his Life Time email address to email himself Life Time’s confidential information. 

The complaint contains nine (typical) counts: violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), tortious interference with prospective contracts, tortious interference with existing contracts, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties.

The VP’s attorneys and the VP himself have denied any improper actions. 

TAKEAWAYS:  The allegations in this case (which remain to be proven) illustrate a typical former employee/employer dispute, which often arises when an employee decides to open a business that competes with his or her former employer.

The allegations raise an issue of when is the line between preparation to compete (generally allowed under Texas law) is crossed into competition with the employer while on employer’s payroll (not permitted).  In some situations, the answer to that question is clear, while in others, it requires a rigorous legal and factual analysis.

The line between fair competition and unfair competition is often in the eye of the beholder, frequently pushing the parties towards litigation as a forum for resolving what is fair.  While some disputes may not be resolved outside the courtroom, many may be avoided if employees planning to compete with their former employer follow two simple steps: (1) review their employment agreements to determine what obstacles, if any, they present to opening a competing business; and (2) avoid actually competing with the employer or using employer’s resources to plan the new business while on employer’s payroll. 

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

Non-Compete Agreements are Not OK in Oklahoma

leoTurns out Oklahoma and California have much more in common than one would imagine – they both prohibit non-compete agreements.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed in Cardoni, et al. v. Prosperity Bank what many Oklahoma businesses already know – non-compete restraints in Oklahoma do not hold up in court.  What makes this case interesting is that the Fifth Circuit refused to apply Texas law to bankers’ non-compete agreements even though they agreed that their agreements should be governed by Texas law, because Texas law was contrary to Oklahoma’s public policy, which prohibits such agreements under any circumstances. As the result, the Oklahoma bankers were allowed to compete despite the non-compete clauses in their employment contracts with a Texas bank.

Prosperity Bank highlights a situation, which has become more common in recent years, where a court will not apply the parties’ selected law because it is either (a) contrary to the fundamental policy of the state where the employee works, or (b) has no substantial relationship to the employment relationship, the employer or the employee.  So, how can companies ensure that they are protected from competition from employees located in other states?  The following basic rules can help companies draft effective post-employment restraints:

  1. Non-compete agreements are governed by different laws in each state.
  2. While the courts usually will defer to the parties’ choice of law to govern their employment contracts, that is not always the case.
  3. Where the law specified in an employment agreement contradicts a “fundamental public policy” of the state where the employee works, courts may refuse to apply the chosen law.
  4. If possible, a company should make sure that its non-competes are enforceable in both – the state specified in the contract and the state where the employee works.
  5. If that is not possible or an employee works in a state that prohibits non-compete agreements, the employer should look to see whether confidentiality or non-solicitations clauses may be used to achieve the same or similar results.
  6. The bottom line is that figuring out which law applies to non-compete agreements in different states and whether they will be enforced in court down the road involves a factually intensive and complicated legal analysis.  For higher-level employees, it pays to have the analysis done before non-compete agreements are signed and not after such employees have already opened a competing business or joined a competitor.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

Small Business Corner: Limiting Competition Through Contract Provisions

download (1)Whether you are hiring a new employee or entering in a contract with your vendor or supplier, if you are planning on giving these persons access to your business’ confidential information, such as customer lists, financial information, proprietary training materials, etc., you should make sure that the person you are sharing it with is not going to take that information and use it to compete against your business. There are several tools available to business owners to make sure that this does not happen.

When properly drafted, the following contractual provisions will serve to protect a business owner from unfair competition by a former employee or business partner:

  • Non-compete clause.  This clause prevents current employees or business partners from joining or forming a competing business after the end of their employment or business relationship with your company.  It is enforceable in Texas when certain conditions are met.
  • Non-solicitation of clients clause.  This clause prevents current employees or business partners from taking the company’s clients with them after their employment or business relationship with that company ends.
  • Non-solicitation of employees a.k.a anti-raiding clause.  This clause prevents current employees or business partners from poaching their former employer’s or business partner’s employees after the end of their employment or business relationship.
  • Non-disclosure clause.  This clause prohibits employees or business partners from using or disclosing confidential information that a company shared with them during their employment or business relationship.

To be enforceable, each clause has to be drafted specifically for your business.  There are some contract clauses that stay the same no matter what the substance of the contract or the business is – these are not those clauses.

A lot of business owners will adopt a friend’s or a former employer’s non-compete and non-solicitation agreements for their own use, or copy an agreement they found online.  However, those agreements usually work only until a company attempts to enforce them, leaving a business owner exposed to unfair competition at the precise moment when it needs the protection the most.

These copycat restrictive covenants often fail because a company that attempts to enforce them in court must show why a particular geographic area or a specified time period is reasonable for a particular employee, and explain exactly what is included in the definition of “confidential information” included in the non-disclosure clause.  This is virtually impossible to do if the agreement that the company is seeking to enforce was catered to a different company’s business, with different types of confidential information, and different employee structure.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of COMPANIES and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need assistance with a non-compete or a trade secret misappropriation situation, contact Leiza for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

Is Your Non-Compete Enforceable in Texas?

stevecarelMany a business owner has been tempted to save a few hundred dollars by using a non-compete agreement found somewhere on the web or bought from Legalzoom or the like.  The problem with such an approach is, of course, that every state has different rules about what makes a non-compete agreement enforceable. What might be enforceable in one state, might be a worthless piece of paper in another. This is why obtaining a form non-compete agreement, without verifying its enforceability in Texas, is dangerous. It is also dangerous not to update employees’ non-compete agreements, as the law on this issue is always evolving.

I do not know if either of those factors were present in Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes, but the non-compete in that case was clearly missing the language necessary to make it enforceable in Texas.  It could have been because the owner copied an agreement from another state, or did not update the agreement, or because the necessary language was omitted from the agreement by mistake.  In the end, it did not matter, as the court refused to enforce the non-compete against an employee who, after leaving his employer, continued to work directly for his employer’s client.

In Texas, for a non-compete to be enforceable it must “be ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made.”  The Fifth Circuit in Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes recently re-affirmed that in Texas, a non-compete agreement must be accompanied by either a promise from employer to provide an employee with confidential information or an employee’s promise to keep confidential information provided by the employer confidential.  Without such promises, a non-compete agreement that is based simply on an employer’s promise of continued employment in an at-will contract is unenforceable.  In other states, simply promising to provide an employee with employment is enough to make a non-compete agreement valid.  However, Texas courts require more.

Takeway for Employers: Determination of the sufficiency of consideration for a non-compete executed by an at-will employee often turns on which state’s law applies.  If the relevant facts and circumstances permit, an employer should include a choice-of-law provision designating the law of a state where at-will employment is adequate consideration. However, where an agreement is governed by Texas law, a simple promise to continue to employ an at-will employee is not enough to support a binding non-compete.

Takeway for EmployeesNot every non-compete agreement is enforceable in Texas.  If your employment agreement contains a non-compete clause, you should consult with an attorney before signing your agreement to determine what consequences you will be facing if your employer decides to enforce it against you in the future. Likewise, if you have already signed one but are trying to figure out what your options are once you leave your employment, consult with an employment attorney to determine whether it enforceable and what course of action to take.

You can read the entire case here.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need advice regarding your non-compete agreement, contact Ms. Dolghih for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

What You Should Know About Non-Compete Agreements in Your Industry

kkAccording to a recent study,* at least one in four workers have signed a non-compete during their work-life, and at least 12% of the U.S. labor force are currently working under one. However, only 10% of the study participants reported bargaining over the terms of their non-compete agreements before signing them.

According to this study, the chances of being bound a non-compete increase with the higher level of education – 9% without college degree v. 27% of those with a graduate degree are bound by a non-compete. They also rise with the increase in salary, with one in three workers making over $100K a year having agreed to a non-compete.  So, if you are an MBA/Ph.D. graduate who makes over $100K, your employment paperwork will most likely have some version of a non-compete clause.

The researchers found that the following occupations tend to have non-compete agreements most frequently:

  • Engineering and architecture (30%)
  • Computer and mathematical occupations (28%)
  • Business and financial (23%)
  • Managers (22%)
  • Life, Physical & Social Sciences (20%)

Not surprisingly, the study also determined that non-compete agreements are more likely to be signed in states with higher non-compete enforcement policies. Texas is one of such states.

Furthermore, according to the study, the biggest predictor of whether an employee will be asked to sign a non-compete is whether he or she will be working with trade secrets.  About 10-20% of those who work with clients or have access to client-specific information sign non-competes, and about 24-30% of those who have access to trade secrets sign non-compete agreements, regardless of income, education, occupation, industry or firm size.

Out of all the participants in the study, 40% reported that they either did not read their employment contract or read it very quickly and only 8% stated that they consulted with a lawyer before signing one.

TAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYEES: Employees should not blindly sign their employment paperwork, without carefully reading it first. Understanding whether an employment agreement contains a non-compete clause and what its limitations are, can help employees negotiate the reach and length of the clause, negotiate a higher salary, and/or plan exit strategy for when they want to leave their employer.

TAKEAWAY FOR EMPLOYERS:  Explaining to a potential or a new hire their non-compete restraints before they sign an employment agreement can help create a transparent working relationship and set everybody’s expectations, which leads to employees being more productive.   The above study found that, overall, employees who sign non-compete agreements typically get more training and advancement opportunities.  If that is the case in your organization, pointing that out to an employee how is asked to sign a non-compete may help employee understand that the non-compete agreement is mutually beneficial.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need advice regarding your non-compete agreement, contact Ms. Dolghih for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.

* The study titled “Noncompetes in the U.S. Labor Force” is authored by Mr. Evan Starr, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, School of Labor and Employment Relations and the Department of Economics (; Mr. Norman Bishara, University of Michigan, Ross School of Business (; and JJ Prescott, University of Michigan Law School (

No Non-Compete Agreement? No Problem! – What Texas Companies Can Learn from Oculus Rift Lawsuits

kkI advise all my business clients in Texas to have non-compete and non-solicitation agreements with their key employees. Why? Well, first of all, because Texas courts enforce such agreements, so it only makes sense to take advantage of them. Second, because clear, specific, and reasonable non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are usually a fair trade for providing key employees with access to customer lists, confidential information or expensive specialized training.

However, what happens if an employee does not have a non-compete? Does that mean that he or she can set up a competing shop across the street with no repercussions from the former employer? Well, not exactly. One only has to take a look at a few recent high-profile cases out of California courts to see that employers have many other ways to prevent employees from taking their confidential information and opening a competing business.  Since California does not allow non-competes, its employers have spent years perfecting other remedies to prevent unscrupulous employees from misappropriating their trade secrets. So, while Texas hates to look to California for, pretty much, anything, and while Texas and California law often diverge significantly, on this specific issue it pays to take note of what California companies have been cooking in their own courts.

Most recent example of an employer v. former employee battle waged in California-land that did not involve a non-compete agreement is a lawsuit by Total Recall Technologies (TRT) against Oculus Rift – a company that manufactures virtual 3D-reality headsets for gaming – and its founder, Palmer Luckey.  TRT filed a complaint in a federal court in California alleging a breach of non-disclosure agreement and “wrongful exploitation and conversion of plaintiff’s intellectual and personal property in connection with TRT’s development of affordable, immersive, virtual reality technology” by Luckey and Oculus Rift.  TRT alleged that Luckey was hired in 2011 to help develop a prototype head-mounted display, and as part of his job, he received information and feedback to modify the design.  According to TRT, Luckey used this confidential information to create Oculus Rift, his own version of the head-mounted display, which he launched via Kickstarter.  The lawsuit demands both punitive and compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. Given that Oculus Rift has recently been acquired by Facebook for $2 billion, the timing of this lawsuit could not be better for the plaintiff.

This is not the first time that Oculus Rift and its founder are being sued for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. In 2014, ZeniMaxIP sued the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging that Occulus Rift breached its non-disclosure agreement with ZeniMax and, among other things, hired ZeniMax’s employees knowing that they would inevitably disclose ZeniMax’s trade secrets. Other claims included copyright infringement, unfair competition, trademark infringement, unjust enrichment, and false designation under the Lanham Act.

Notably absent from the suits were statutory claims for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The claim was not included in the ZeniMax v. Oculus lawsuit because Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), which governs such claims now, did not apply to misappropriations that occurred prior to September 1, 2013 – its effective date.  Why TRT did not plead a claim under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) is less clear, but just like TUTSA such claim is often plead in many employer v. former employee lawsuits in California.

Takeaway:  Just because a former employee never signed a non-compete or a non-solicitation agreement, does not mean that he or she can set up a competing business by using the trade secrets of its former employer. In Texas, TUTSA allows employers to go after employees who misappropriated their trade secrets (even in absence of non-compete or non-solicitation restraints) or where there is a threat of misappropriation. Moreover, a lot of times, a good non-disclosure agreement will give grounds to other claims. So, although having a non-compete or a non-solicitation clause in an employment agreement makes it easier for an employer to stop a departing employee from using its confidential information, all is not lost if no such restraints have been put in place.

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need advice regarding your non-compete agreement, contact Ms. Dolghih for a confidential consultation at or (214) 939-4458.

Trends in CEO Non-Compete Agreements

CEOEarlier this year, three law professors* published an analysis of non-compete and non-solicitation restraints in a sample of 874 CEO employment agreements. You can find the entire article here. This is the first empirical study of non-compete restraints.

The professors drew their agreements from a random sample of 500 S&P 1500 companies who are required by law to disclose to the public the terms of their CEO contracts. Here’s a summary of their findings:

  • most of the CEO contracts (80%) had 1 or 2-year covenants not to compete (CNCs)
  • 89% of CNCs prohibited CEOs from working for a competitor, but only 25% prohibited CEOs from financing one
  • almost 40% of CNCs barred CEOs from working anywhere where the company had operations
  • 75% of CEO contracts barred them from soliciting companies’ employees, but only 50% barred CEOs from soliciting clients
  • almost 90% of the contracts had a non-disclosure clause
  • more than half of CNCs were triggered by any departure of the CEO, whether voluntary or not
  • KEY: CEOs are more likely to have CNCs in their employment contracts if their contracts are being enforced in jurisdictions that permit strong CNC clauses, e.g., Texas.
  • KEY: There is a significant trend toward greater usage of CNC clauses in CEO employment contracts
  • KEY: Longer employment contracts (more than one year) are more likely to includes CNCs

TAKEAWAY:  In 2015, non-compete agreements for higher level executives, including CEOs, are the norm rather than an exception. The longer the CEO or a high-level executive works for a company, the more they learn about the business and its proprietary processes, inventions and strategic data that can be used to form a competing business. Therefore, a lot of times a reasonable non-compete restraint is justified and even necessary to protect the company.  CEOs, of course, have a lot of negotiating power when it comes to the exact parameters of such restraints and the appropriate amount of compensation that will justify their sitting on the sidelines for a year or two after their departure from the company.

If an employment contract is governed by Texas law, both the company and the CEO should approach the negotiations with the understanding that non-compete agreements in Texas are governed by the Covenants Not to Compete Act, which allows companies to put reasonable non-compete restraints on employees if they are tied to a legitimate business interest. Thus, for example, for a CEO of a company that has world-wide operations, a 2-year world-wide non-compete might be reasonable under the Act and might be enforced by Texas courts. Knowing that before beginning contract negotiations should help parties assess the appropriate parameters of the restraints and the corresponding compensation package.

*  Norman D. Bishara, Associate Professor of Business Law and Business Ethics, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; Kenneth J. Martin, Regents Professor of Finance, College of Business, New Mexico State University; and Randall S. Thomas, John Beasley II Professor of Law and Business, Vanderbilt Law School, Professor of Management, Owen School of Business, Vanderbilt University. 

Leiza litigates non-compete and trade secrets lawsuits on behalf of EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES in a variety of industries, and knows how such disputes typically play out for both parties. If you need advice regarding your non-compete agreement, contact Ms. Dolghih for a confidential consultation at or (214) 722-7108.