Search form

Wisconsin Court Finds Anti-Poaching Agreements to be Unenforceable

By Sharon Mollman Elliott and Clifford R. Atlas
  • August 19, 2016

Analyzing an anti-poaching agreement as a non-compete agreement, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals has confirmed that a former employee’s agreement not to solicit other employees may be void and unenforceable if it is too broad. The Manitowoc Company v. Lanning, No. 2015AP1530 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016). The decision offers an analysis for determining when an anti-poaching agreement goes beyond protecting the employer’s legitimate interests and becomes an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The employer contended its agreement not to “solicit, induce, or encourage” employees to “terminate their employment” or “accept employment with any competitor, supplier, or customer” was not a restriction on competition. The Court roundly rejected that claim, noting the company had spent more than $1 million in legal fees and costs to stop the former employee from “systematically poaching” its employees. “It is not a leap of logic to conclude that a provision aimed at restricting a former employee from ‘systematically poaching’ the valuable and talented employees of his former employer is a restraint of trade,” the Court said.

Such restraints are illegal and unenforceable unless they are reasonably necessary to protect an employer from unfair competition from a former employee. While acknowledging there may be some restraints that are reasonably necessary to prevent a former employee’s poaching, the Court concluded the restriction here went far beyond that. The Court said it effectively prohibited the former employee from “encouraging any employee to leave [the company] for any reason, or to take any job with any competitor, supplier or customer.”

The actual language of the covenant may have seemed innocuous. It merely prohibited the former employee from (directly or indirectly) soliciting, inducing, or encouraging company employees “to terminate their employment” or to “accept employment with any competitor, supplier, or customer.” However, the Court explained that this language is so broad that it restricts an employee from encouraging a colleague to retire or change industries, even though such action poses no competitive threat to the company. It also prevents a former employee from encouraging a company employee to work for a customer or supplier in a job that is not in any way competitive with the company — such as accepting a job as a Starbucks barista, when Starbucks is a company customer. The Court said such overbreadth means that the restriction is not reasonably necessary to protect the employer from the type of unfair competition an employee can offer.

There is a dearth of case law on the analysis or enforceability of non-solicitation of employees provisions. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has confirmed such restrictions will be analyzed in the same manner as other post-employment restrictive covenants.

The lesson here is that anti-poaching agreements should be tailored as narrowly and carefully as any other restrictive covenant. This is particularly important in Wisconsin and other states where a restrictive covenant between an employer and employee is “lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer,” and where the courts will not blue-pencil or partially enforce overly broad restrictions. State law also may impose additional requirements, such as limiting the restraint to a particular time or territory.

Reviewing and revising restrictive covenants regularly to ensure compliance with changes in the law increases the chance that they will be enforceable in a cost-effective way — and without incurring more than $1 million in legal fees.

Jackson Lewis can assist in updating agreements containing post-employment anti-poaching provisions or other restrictive covenants.

©2016 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