Restrictive Covenants within the Fifth Circuit

Restrictive covenants to not compete, or non-compete agreements, are considered one of quite a lot of instruments firms use to guard their commerce secrets and techniques and aggressive benefit. Nevertheless, whether or not a courtroom will implement a restrictive covenant varies broadly throughout jurisdictions, together with throughout states inside the Fifth Circuit. For instance, the Louisiana statute governing restrictive covenants applies a two-year durational restrict, whereas Mississippi frequent legislation applies a extra common ‘affordable and particular’ customary to the period and geographic scope of a restrictive covenant. As well as, Mississippi courts should steadiness the rights of the employer, the worker, and the general public when implementing restrictive covenants. Buses. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Banks, 91 So. 3d 1, 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), aff’d, 90 So. 3d 1221 (Miss. 2012).

Texas applies comparable elements, however courts have “disbursed with a number of elements solely” the place the restrictive covenant was “moderately slim to guard an organization’s enterprise curiosity or goodwill.” Direct Biologics, LLC v. McQueen, No. 1:22-CV-381-SH, 2022 WL 1409984, at *9 (WD Tex. Could 4, 2022). For instance, in Totino v. Alexander & Associates, Inc., the courtroom enforced a restrictive covenant regardless that it didn’t comprise a geographic limitation. No. 01-97-01204-CV, 1998 WL 552818, at *3-4 (Tex. App. Aug. 20, 1998). The courtroom reasoned that the restrictive covenant was moderately slim, regardless of no geographic limitation, as a result of it was restricted to communications with former purchasers with whom the previous workers had labored. ID.

state Regulation Governing Restrictive Covenants Restrictive Covenants Are Enforceable If the Covenant Is:
Louisiana La. Rev. stats. Ann. 23:921 Restricted to a two-year period; Features a checklist of the geographic areas by which the previous worker is restrained; Restricted to stopping competitors between the previous worker and employer.
Mississippi See, eg, Buses. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Banks, 91 So. 3d 1, 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), aff’d, 90 So. 3d 1221 (Miss. 2012) Affordable and particular in period; Affordable and particular in geographic scope.
Texas Tex. Buses. & Com. Code Ann. 15.50, 15.52 Ancillary to or a part of an in any other case enforceable settlement on the time the settlement is made; Fairly restricted as to time; Fairly restricted as to geographical space; Fairly restricted as to the scope of exercise to be restrained. Restricted to what’s vital to guard the employer’s goodwill or different enterprise curiosity.
Scroll to Top