Non Compete Legal Help

I would not call them unenforceable.

The burden is on the employer to show certain things like spending time and money to give you training and access to information. They also have to be reasonable as to time and geographical limits.

Courts don't like to uphold these so they usually construe them strictly against the employer, but some of them can be enforced.

Forget about seeking legal advice here and get a lawyer who knows something about this. If you are really facing an employment decision or an issue relating to this it will be money well spent. In most states there are few clear, easy answers in this area.

Any reputable lawyers in the BR area?

quote:

---

They aren't really enforceable, right to work

---

Common myth, and even if it gets shot down by a judge the OP will still need legal representation during the process, easier to hire a lawyer to deal with it up front.

quote:

---

They aren't really enforceable, right to work

---

Any more great legal advice?

Hi

Board certified employment lawyer here. I’ve obviously not seen the non compete, including what states law it says applies, but generally speaking most states require a reasonable geographic scope for a non compete to be enforceable. In LA, a non compete must list out the parishes or municipalities in which competition is to be restrained. If that isn’t present, there is a good chance the non compete is unenforceable. HOWEVER even if unenforceable, that doesn’t mean you don’t get a cease and desist letter or lawsuit filed against you seeking a temporary restraining order.

Every state law is different on this and every non compete is analyzed differently. There is no single way to draft or interpret one. Good luck.

Edit to add: right to work is a labor law concept where you cannot be required to join a union. Employment at will means you can quit or an employer can fire you for any reason (absent a contract or statute). Neither have anything to do with noncompetes.

quote:

---

But some courts have been willing to "reform" an overbroad agreement and narrow the geographic limitation to one that is within the statute.

---

This is not accurate. Case law is pretty uniform that a lack of parish by name = void.

If it does not name a parish, and it's in Louisiana, tell them to pound sand.

quote:

---

This is not accurate. Case law is pretty uniform that a lack of parish by name = void.

---

There has been a recent trend toward reforming. They used to be hard and strict, but times are changing. The complete lack of a parish/muni designation may doom it, but I wouldn't be sure without updating the research.

Here are recent examples of reformation:

"The record shows that in reforming Article 25.1 of the operating agreement, the trial court narrowed the geographic range to locations where HMV conducted business activities, removed sentences from the solicitation provision, deleted part of the definition of client and deleted the provision that prohibited Schmidt from being employed by HMV competitors. Although the trial court's revisions were fairly extensive, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in deciding to reform Article 25.1 by deleting the overbroad provisions, resulting in an enforceable noncompetition agreement."

Heard, McElroy & Vestal, LLC v. Schmidt, 52,783 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So. 3d 806, 812, reh'g denied (Nov. 14, 2019)

and

By striking the words “and the States of Texas and Mississippi,” the contract is reformed so that it is not overly broad as to geographic limits.

Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Todd, 2010-41 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/2/10)

quote:

---

Here are recent examples of reformation:

"The record shows that in reforming Article 25.1 of the operating agreement, the trial court narrowed the geographic range to locations where HMV conducted business activities, removed sentences from the solicitation provision, deleted part of the definition of client and deleted the provision that prohibited Schmidt from being employed by HMV competitors. Although the trial court's revisions were fairly extensive, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in deciding to reform Article 25.1 by deleting the overbroad provisions, resulting in an enforceable noncompetition agreement."

Heard, McElroy & Vestal, LLC v. Schmidt, 52,783 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So. 3d 806, 812, reh'g denied (Nov. 14, 2019)

and

By striking the words “and the States of Texas and Mississippi,” the contract is reformed so that it is not overly broad as to geographic limits.

Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Todd, 2010-41 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/2/10)

---

Seriously, you need to stop trying to scare this guy. The first case you posted has absolutely nothing to do with this issue he raised. The noncompete in Heard actually specified parishes. The trial court simply severed (pursuant to a severability clause) excess geographic scope for places where the company may want to open business sites in the future.

The second case...same thing. It specified the actual parishes but then also said Texas and Mississippi. The severability clause allowed the court to sever Texas and Mississippi to allow the non-compete to apply to the specific parishes listed.

There is no (still valid) case out there that allows a court to reform a non-compete in Louisiana to add parishes.

Cliffs: If there's no parish(es) listed or identified, it is absolutely null and void.