Search form

Federal Standard for Enjoining Breach of Non-Compete Agreement Differs from Florida’s, Eleventh Circuit Rules

  • October 1, 2015

Federal courts must balance the potential harm to the former employee with the threatened injury to the party seeking to enforce a non-competition agreement when deciding whether to grant an injunction enforcing the agreement, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled, possibly changing how courts evaluate restrictive covenants in employment agreements in Florida. Transunion Risk and Alt. Data Solutions, Inc. v. MacLachlan, No. 15-10985 (11th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015) (unpublished). Florida courts are expressly prohibited by the state’s non-compete statute (Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(g)1) from considering the hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.

The appeals court agreed with the district court’s decision to presume irreparable harm for the violation of a non-compete agreement. The Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (“Rule 65”) was consistent with the state law that creates a presumption of irreparable harm (Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(j)), noting that the former employer had established a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm and that the former employee did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this conclusion.

However, the appellate court found that Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(g)1 governs the enforceability of restrictive covenants, and not the enforcement of an already enforceable restrictive covenant controlled by Rule 65. Because federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction (where state law claims may be in issue, but a federal court can decide the case because the parties are from different states) apply federal procedural law to the exclusion of any contrary state procedure, the Eleventh Circuit held that the requirement to balance the harms under Rule 65 controlled.

When deciding whether to enforce non-competes in federal or state court, companies should keep in mind that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must consider the harm of enjoining a former employee against the potential harm to the former employer because of the breach of the non-compete. Florida state courts, however, are prohibited from considering the harm to an enjoined individual.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 27, 2017

Proposed New York City Council Legislation Would Add Private Right of Action to Earned Sick Time Act and Prohibit Non-Competes for Low-Wage Employees

July 27, 2017

New legislation introduced in the New York City Council would add a private right of action to the Earned Sick Time Act (Introduction 1667) and prohibit employers from entering into a covenant not to compete with any low-wage employee of that employer (Introduction 1663). Introduction 1667 was sponsored by the Council’s Deputy Leader... Read More

June 29, 2017

New Law Brings Changes to Nevada’s Non-Compete Law

June 29, 2017

Over the last year, Nevada’s non-compete law has undergone a number of changes. The latest is a new law setting forth a new standard by which non-compete agreements are to be evaluated. Golden Road Nearly a year ago, on July 21, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. d/b/a Atlantis Casino... Read More

December 12, 2016

Fast-Food Restaurant CEO Tapped to Head Labor Department: What to Expect

December 12, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive Officer of CKE Holdings, the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, to head the U.S. Department of Labor. Puzder was a lawyer in St. Louis and represented the founder of Carl’s Jr. He later became the general... Read More