Is the reasonableness of a Texas non-compete a question of law or a question of fact?
I was once defending a Texas non-compete lawsuit and taking the deposition of the business owner who was trying to enforce the non-compete. I asked if he had any view of what a reasonable length of time for the non-compete would be. His answer: “when hell freezes over.”
That’s why I love litigation.
Recalling that answer got me thinking about an important issue in non-compete law: Is the reasonableness of a non-compete a question of law or a question of fact? If you’ve read a few Texas non-compete cases, you may already know the answer. There are dozens of cases reciting that the reasonableness of a non-compete is a question of law.
And all of those cases are wrong.
Or at least they are only partially correct. Why?
Before we can answer that question, we need to tackle a deeper jurisprudential question, the kind that law professors love: what is the difference between a question of law and a question of fact?
Deep thoughts on questions of law and fact
Let’s start with the easy part. A pure question of law is a legal issue that can be stated entirely in the abstract, without any reference to the particular facts of a case. Let’s say you’re in a car crash and the question is “what is the statute of limitations for a negligence claim?” That’s a pure question of law.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the question has a simple answer. It just means you can answer the question without knowing anything about any facts. For example, the general rule in Texas would be that you have to file a negligence lawsuit within two years of the car accident.
A pure question of fact, on the other hand, has nothing to do with law. “Did the defendant run a red light?” is a pure question of fact. (There are also “mixed” questions of law and fact, the classic example being the standard of care in a negligence or malpractice case, but let’s put that aside for the moment.)
It gets more complicated when the question applies an abstract legal principle to a particular scenario. Let’s take the question “does the statute of limitations start running at the time of the accident, or when the plaintiff discovered the extent of his injuries?” That sounds more factual, but it’s still a question of law, because it simply applies an abstract principle to a given factual situation.
Now let’s make it harder. My lawyer readers will know the “discovery rule.” The discovery rule is an exception that keeps the limitations clock from starting until the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury. Is applying the discovery rule in a particular case a question of law or a question of fact?
This is where judges tend to go wrong. Perhaps nothing provides a better opportunity for superficial judicial analysis than whether an issue is a question of law or fact.
For example, if the judge thinks it’s a question of fact, she will typically write “the discovery rule is a question of fact for the jury,” cite some cases that said it was a question of fact, and be done with it. Similarly, if the judge thinks it’s a question of law, the judge will write “the discovery rule is a question of law,” cite some cases that said that, and move on.
This is superficial, and wrong. If judges would only remember what their law school professors said, they would say the answer is “it depends.”
It depends. Of course, it depends! It depends on what the evidence is. For example, if the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff discovered his injury more than two years before filing suit, then it’s a question of law. You’re just applying a legal principle to an undisputed set of facts. But if there is conflicting evidence about when the plaintiff discovered his injury (or should have discovered it), it’s a question of fact.
Pretty simple, right? But trust me, courts mess this up all the time. Sometimes it may just be intellectual laziness. But often it’s more than that.
Does it matter whether it’s a question of law or fact?
You may be wondering why it matters. What difference does it make whether we call an issue a question of law or a question of fact? Isn’t this just philosophical musing?
No. It matters whether an issue is a question of law or fact because that determines who gets to decide the issue. If it’s a question of law, the judge decides. But if it’s a question of fact, that means the factfinder gets to answer the question. Depending on the type of proceeding, the factfinder could be the judge, the jury, or an arbitrator.
Now, I know a lot of my Fivers are stone-cold realists. You may question whether there is any principled distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. You might say that asking “is it a question of law or fact?” is nothing more than asking “does the judge or the jury get to decide the question?”
That would be going too far. The distinction between a question of law and a question of fact is real, even if it is sometimes difficult to draw that line. But it is important to understand that the practical effect of the answer is to determine whether the judge or the jury gets to decide.
Whether the issue is a question of law or question of fact also determines who gets to decide the issue on appeal. Generally, the appellate court will defer to the factfinder on questions of fact but will decide questions of law de novo. “De novo” is a Latin phrase that means “I don’t care what a lowly trial court judge thinks.”
Is the picture coming into focus now? If I’m the judge and I have a certain view of what a fair outcome would be, might that have some effect on whether I characterize an issue as a question of law or question of fact?
Let’s take our statute of limitations example. If I think the case should go to trial, I might be inclined to simply proclaim that the discovery rule is a question of fact for the jury and leave it at that. Conversely, if I think the case has no merit, I might be inclined to say it’s a question of law and grant summary judgment for the defendant.
I’m not necessarily suggesting there is anything sinister about this. Even the most impartial judges will tend to characterize the issue in a way that favors an outcome they sincerely believe is fair and just. That’s true even before you add external forces to the mix—say, campaign contributions from “tort reform” groups or plaintiff’s lawyers.
But there is a better way: it depends. It depends on the evidence. If the relevant evidence is undisputed, it’s a question of law. If the relevant evidence is conflicting, it’s a question of fact.
This proposition, though often ignored, shouldn’t be controversial. If you think it’s wrong, please tell me why.
Let’s apply what we’ve learned
Now let’s apply this not-so-controversial principle to a typical Texas non-compete.
Texas, like most states, requires a non-compete to be reasonable in time period, geographic area, and scope of activity restrained. So, is the reasonableness of a Texas non-compete a question of law or a question of fact?
You already know where this is headed, but let’s break it down.
What do we mean by “reasonable,” as applied to a non-compete? Fortunately, the Texas non-compete statute gives us a clue. It says the non-compete must have “limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than is necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.” For the typical Texas non-compete, which is tied to a confidentiality agreement, reasonableness comes down to whether the limitations are no greater than necessary to protect the company’s goodwill and confidential information.
So how about a three-year time period? Is that reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s goodwill and confidential information? And what about a geographic area of the State of Texas? Is that reasonable?
You’re probably having trouble answering these questions in the abstract. That’s because you don’t know anything about the facts of the case. It would make a difference whether it takes three months or three years for the confidential information to become outdated and useless. It matters whether the company sells products to customers throughout the State of Texas or in just one city.
If you don’t know the answers to these questions, there is no way you can know if the time period and geographic area are reasonable. You simply cannot determine the reasonableness of the non-compete in the abstract.
And yet, many Texas cases recite that the reasonableness of the non-compete is a question of law. As I said earlier, that is either wrong or only partially correct. Reasonableness could only be a question of law if the facts concerning reasonableness are not in dispute. If there is conflicting evidence material to reasonableness, it’s a question of fact.
And I can prove it. My witness is the Texas legislature, and my Exhibit 1 is Section 15.51 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. It says:
If the primary purpose of the agreement to which the covenant is ancillary is to obligate the promisor to render personal services, for a term or at will, the promisee has the burden of establishing that the covenant meets the criteria specified by Section 15.50 of this code. . . . For the purposes of this subsection, the “burden of establishing” a fact means the burden of persuading the triers of fact that the existence of the fact is more probable than its nonexistence
“Triers of fact”? Who could that possibly be referring to if it’s a question of law?
Let me translate. This means that for a non-compete in a typical employment agreement, the employer has the burden of proving the non-compete is reasonable.
This proves my point that the reasonableness of a non-compete can be a question of fact, provided there is conflicting evidence. How else could there be a burden of proof on the issue? Questions of law don’t have a burden of proof.
Why this matters in non-compete litigation
This explains why I was asking that deposition question about a reasonable time period for the non-compete. I knew it was the employer’s burden to prove that the time period in the contract was reasonable. I wanted to nail down whether the employer had any evidence to offer that the time period was reasonable. He didn’t.
Wait a minute, you say. Even if you’re technically correct, isn’t this just a case of sloppy language? Opinions that say it’s a question of law may still be getting the result right, if the undisputed facts of the case establish that the non-compete was either reasonable or unreasonable.
True. But the issue is not academic. For one thing, treating reasonableness of a non-compete as a question of law tends to favor enforcement of the non-compete. In theory, the judge could just as easily find a non-compete unenforceable as a matter of law. But in practice, the vast majority of cases that say reasonableness is a question of law also say the non-compete was reasonable, and therefore enforceable. So, the outcome of this philosophical issue can make a real practical difference.
Now that I’ve cleared this up, when can we expect Texas appellate courts to stop proclaiming without qualification that the reasonableness of a non-compete is a question of law for the court?
I’d say probably when hell freezes over.
Zach Wolfe (email@example.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at his firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC. Follow @zachwolfelaw on Instagram to keep up with his latest shenanigans.
These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.
 Appellate lawyers call this the “standard of review.” Standard of review is one of those issues that is really, really exciting for appellate lawyers and boring for just about everyone else.
 Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a).