Litigation: Illinois Supreme Court rejects the “legitimate business interest” test

A timely reminder to refresh your company’s non-compete agreements in accordance with current standards and in anticipation of future litigation

A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision provides corporate counsel with an overdue reminder to re-examine the language and scope of their companies’ non-compete agreements. While non-compete agreements are often swept under the rug when a new employee begins work, the potential outcomes are catastrophic. States can differ on their views of non-compete agreements, so it is crucial to have a hold on how your state treats these restrictive covenants.

In Reliance Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a non-compete agreement is valid and reasonable if all three components are met:

  1. It protects, but does not exceed, the legitimate business interests of the employer
  2. There is no undue hardship on the employee
  3. There is no harm to the public

The court went on to eliminate the various “legitimate business interest” tests that have sprung up over the past 36 years and instead chose to determine a legitimate business interest for each case, based on the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, in Illinois, a non-compete agreement must meet the three-pronged test illustrated above before a court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a legitimate business interest existed.

In New York, the decisions on non-compete agreements follow the same standard. The restrictive covenant is reasonable if the non-compete agreement:

  1.  Is no greater than required for the legitimate interest of the employer
  2.  Does not impose undue hardship on the employee
  3.  Is not injurious to the public

New York courts tend to uphold non-compete agreements when the underlying facts involve trade secrets, confidential customer information, unique employee services, and relations or goodwill between employers and clients.

In somewhat of a contrast to Illinois and New York, California voids all non-compete agreements unless it falls under certain rare exceptions. The California Business and Professions Code states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” California strongly supports the public policy behind the right to work for anyone and in the field of one’s choice. It encourages free competition and mobility for employees.

Protect your company by taking a moment to look over your organization’s non-compete agreement. A simple change to the language, timing or geographic area may mean the difference between keeping your clients and helplessly watching business walk out the door.

About the Author
Matthew Walsh

Matthew Walsh

Matthew Walsh is a partner in the Chicago office of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and co-leader of the firm's Business Litigation Department. His practice concentrates on complex litigation with particular emphasis in the areas of construction, commercial, employment, municipal, medical malpractice and religious institutions liability. Mr. Walsh practices in Hinshaw's Chicago office and may be reached at mwalsh@hinshawlaw.com.

Comments

InsideScoop Daily eNewsletter

InsideScoop delivers the latest-breaking news affecting in-house counsel. Get the latest business trends, current corporate litigation, labor developments, technology initiatives and more — FREE. Sign up now!

You have been subscribed! You will receive a confirmation email soon.

See the entire list of InsideCounsel eNewsletters.

Resource Library


Bring the Benefits of Decision Tree Analysis to Your Everyday...

In this on-demand webinar, learn how to counter the challenges of litigation with predictive analytics...

13 Things to do Now to Reduce Risk and Avoid...

We have developed best practices for lowering your e-Discovery costs, shortening the length of your...

7 Simple Strategies for Improving Legal Fee Budgeting Certainty

Understanding the legal fee budgeting paradigm and following seven simple strategies will help you control...

Complimentary White Paper: Best Practices for Meeting Critical eDiscovery Challenges

Packed with practical advice, this white paper discusses best practices for meeting eDiscovery challenges across...

Complimentary White Paper "Key Considerations for Collection Methodologies and Resources"

This white paper addresses the need for companies to reevaluate their current collection policies in...

Moving Matters In-House: How Technology Enables Legal In-Sourcing

Strategically shifting more matters to in-house counsel has proven to be an effective strategy to...

5 Ways to Promote Responsible Content Sharing

Find out five ways that organizations can promote responsible sharing of content among employees by...

Reducing the Costs of eDiscovery from Collection to Court!

Predictive coding is only one of many ways organizations can make eDiscovery faster, cheaper and...

Discovery Shifts to the Cloud

Adoption of Cloud computing continues to gain momentum. How can IT and Legal Teams avoid...

Lower Your Total Cost of Ownership

With the deployment of Proofpoint Enterprise Archive, organizations have realized significant cost savings in automating...

View All »

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.