Of the various types of post-employment restrictions imposed on employees, a restriction on the recruitment of former co-workers (sometimes referred to as a “no-poach” or “anti-raiding” clause) is the type most likely to be enforced by a court. As a result, this is one type of post-employment restriction that is frequently drafted without the careful thought generally put in to traditional non-competes and client non-solicitation clauses. But in what could be a foreshadowing of closer judicial scrutiny of co-worker non-solicitation clauses nationwide, the Wisconsin ...
Over the past 24 months, one of the hottest issues in non-compete law has been whether continued at-will employment, by itself, is sufficient consideration for a non-compete.
Last week, in Runzheimer International v. Friedlen and Corporate Reimbursement Services, Inc., the Wisconsin Supreme weighed in on this issue, holding that continued employment is sufficient consideration for a non-compete signed by a current at-will employee. However, the Court expressly qualified this holding by explaining that if an at-will employee is fired “shortly after signing” a ...
Recent Updates
- New York Proposes Bill Aimed at Prohibiting Noncompetes for Healthcare Workers
- No Free Pass in Mass: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Irreparable Harm Must Be Proven, Not Presumed, in Trade Secret Cases
- New York Federal Court Enforces Non-Compete Against Employee Terminated for Cause
- Louisiana, Maryland, and Iowa Pass Laws Restricting Noncompetes Specific to Certain Professions
- Delaware Refuses to Blue Pencil Overbroad Restrictive Covenants Following Business Acquisition