Illinois Court Strikes Down Restrictive Covenant

25 July 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

On June 24, 2013, an appellate court in Illinois made it more difficult for Illinois employers, including those in the automotive industry, to enforce non-solicitation and non-competition provisions. Specifically, the court determined that such restrictive covenants won’t be enforceable unless the employee in question works for at least two years after signing the restrictive covenant. Generally speaking, like all contracts, there must be sufficient consideration for courts to enforce restrictive covenants. The Illinois court determined that, in the employment setting, there would not be enough consideration for enforcement until an employee had been employed for two years.

Several key facts make this case notable. First, the restrictive covenants in question were agreed to upon the start of new employment, not some months or years after the employee had begun working for the company. Even so, the court still required two years of employment before there would be adequate consideration. Second, the employee had negotiated the terms of the restrictive covenant and successfully had them altered to his benefit before accepting the new employment. Despite this, the court still refused to enforce the restrictive covenants. Third, the court determined that it was irrelevant whether a restrictive covenant is negotiated before or after employment begins—either way, it would be a “post-employment” restrictive covenant.

Practically speaking, this means that an Illinois employer will be unable to enforce any non-solicitation or non-competition clauses in an employment agreement if an employee leaves to go work for a competitor before reaching his or her two year anniversary with the employer. This is the case even if the agreement is entered into at the inception of employment. This case is likely to be appealed but, until then, employers should use caution when hiring and considering enforcement of non-solicitation or non-competition clauses.

Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc. 

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