Recent Texas Supreme Court ruling signals non-competes becoming easier to enforce.

18 July 2011 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Jessica Glatzer Mason

In a significant shift from prior rulings, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of stock options which are exercised by an employee can support a non-competition agreement. This ruling presents employers with an additional opportunity to obtain non-compete agreements from employees in certain situations. 

Roy Cook, a Managing Director of Marsh McLennan (“Marsh”), was awarded stock options.  Under the terms of the stock option grant, Cook would be required to execute a non-competition agreement when he exercised the options.  Cook subsequently exercised the options and signed a non-competition agreement.  A few years later, Cook resigned from Marsh and began working for a competitor.  Marsh sued Cook and his new employer to enforce the non-compete agreement. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the non-competition agreement was enforceable if it was reasonable in its scope of restricted activity.  Breaking from its previous decisions, the Court ruled that the consideration given in exchange for a non-compete agreement need not “give rise” to the interest in restraining competition.  Instead, the Court ruled, there need only be a nexus between the consideration and the employer’s interest worthy of protection by the non-compete agreement.  Announcing a new standard for enforceability of non-compete agreements in Texas, the Court declared that the interest the employer is protecting by the non-compete, in this case, the company’s goodwill, must only be “reasonably related” to the consideration, or the stock options, provided by the company.  Notably, the Court emphasized Cook’s key executive-level position with the company and that the options were only offered to select employees, and carefully explained the stock options resulted in Cook’s ownership of the company, which reasonably related to the company’s interest in protecting the company’s goodwill.

The decision in Cook has left many open questions.  For example, what other types of consideration will suffice in exchange for an employee’s promise not to compete?  The next battleground is likely to be whether other types of compensation, including incentive bonuses, retention bonuses, or other incentives tied to the health, reputation or goodwill of the company will be sufficient consideration.  Whether this reasoning will apply to lower level employees or only to key executives of a company likewise remains an open issue.  Finally, the opinion suggests that there may be more business interests protectable through a non-compete agreement than previously announced by the court in its previous rulings. 

Gardere’s Labor and Employment attorneys have extensive experience helping employers draft and enforce non-compete agreements.  If you would like to discuss the impact of this ruling on your company’s current non-competition agreements, or if you would like to explore ways to increase the use of non-competes in your business, please contact the Gardere Labor and Employment Group. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA