Search form

Nevada Confirms Its Restrictive Covenant Law, But Rejects Blue Penciling

By Paul T. Trimmer, Deverie J. Christensen and Lisa A. McClane
  • July 26, 2016

In the first decision to reach the Nevada Supreme Court on whether state district courts may modify or “blue pencil” non-competition agreements, the high court has concluded that doing so would violate Nevada law. Golden Road Motor Inn Inc. d/b/a Atlantis Casino Resort Spa v. Islam, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (July 21, 2016). The 4-3 decision signals a clear change in direction that affects the enforceability of non-competition agreements in Nevada.

The Court explained that under Nevada law, an overly broad term prohibiting an employee from “employment, affiliation, or service” with a competitor, which “extends beyond what is necessary” to protect the former employer’s interests, is unreasonable and “renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable.”

Distinguishing this case from prior published decisions, the Court reasoned that exercising “judicial restraint when confronted with the urge to pick up the pencil is sound public policy … as our use of the pencil should not lead us to the place of drafting.” The Court explained its role as interpreting contracts, not writing them, and that altering a contract, even minimally, would “conflict[] with the impartiality that is required of the bench….”

Further, the Court stated that “[a] strict test for reasonableness is applied to restrictive covenants in employment cases because the economic hardship imposed on employees is given considerable weight.” Employers clearly hold a superior bargaining position when such contracts are presented to employees and, in the context of a restraint of trade, the Court said that “a good faith presumption benefiting the employer is unwarranted.”

This clear change in direction affects the enforceability of non-competition agreements in Nevada. Employers must ensure that non-competition provisions are drafted clearly and are reasonable in all respects. Employers must be mindful of whether the provisions “extends beyond what is necessary” to protect their interests. Questions to ask include:

  • Is the period of non-competition longer than necessary?
  • Is the geographic scope (the territory in which competition is prohibited) larger than needed when compared to the work the former employee performed and information to which the employee was exposed?
  • Does the non-competition clause prevent the former employee from being employed in the same industry generally, or is the restriction limited to the same or substantially similar type of work the former employee performed while employed with the former employer?
  • Does the language in the non-competition provision (or the contract in which it appears) provide factual support upon which a court may rely to assess the reasonableness of the time, territory, and job restrictions?

Similar courts in many other states, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated that non-competition agreements generally are disfavored and will not be enforced unless narrowly drafted. By following an “all or nothing” approach to overbroad agreements, Nevada is in the minority when compared to courts that take either the strict blue pencil approach (see, e.g., our article, North Carolina Supreme Court Reiterates Limited Blue Pencil Approach to Overbroad Non-Competes) or the reasonable reformation approach (see, e.g., our article, Missouri Cases Illustrate Enforceability of Well-Drafted Non-Competition Agreements). Accordingly, careful drafting is required.

Employers, particularly those seeking to use non-compete agreements in a multistate environment, should take the time to review and revise form and contract-specific non-competition agreements to ensure the agreements are enforceable.

Jackson Lewis attorneys in our Las Vegas office are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and assist employers with non-competition agreements in Nevada.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 2, 2019

New Jersey Court Brings ‘Clarity and Uniformity’ to Analysis of Restrictive Covenants

August 2, 2019

The New Jersey Appellate Division has clarified the analysis required to determine the effect of restrictive covenant agreements (RCAs) and offered guidance to practitioners drafting RCAs under New Jersey law in a decision on six consolidated actions. ADP, LLC v. Kusins, No. A-4664-16T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 26, 2019).... Read More

May 17, 2019

The EPL Insurance Advisor – May 2019

May 17, 2019

To assist underwriters and claims professionals in assessing emerging employment risks, we are pleased to provide the first issue of our newsletter. The EPL Insurance Advisor highlights topical issues in claims, defenses, and liability risk management developments. 2019 EPLI Trends Report – What Analysts and Underwriters Should... Read More

May 15, 2019

Does Massachusetts Non-Compete Law Restrict Access to Federal Court or Arbitration?

May 15, 2019

The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (Non-Compete Act) has yet to be tested, but its venue provision likely will come under special scrutiny. The venue provision governs the geographical location and forum in which a non-compete lawsuit may be maintained. Due to its apparent conflicts with federal law, the venue provision will... Read More