This series has focused on drafting an enforceable Texas non-compete, because that’s where I practice, but if you’re drafting a non-compete for a company in the oil and gas industry, you may need to consider other states, especially Louisiana. Check out Drafting Enforceable Non-Competes in the Energy Industry for some good tips.
But back to Texas.
In Part 1 we saw how to draft a Texas non-compete to meet the once-elusive “ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement” requirement.
In Part 2 we saw how to meet the “reasonableness” requirement.
You could stop there and have a pretty decent Texas non-compete, but do you need a separate non-solicitation agreement? And what about all that additional boilerplate you often see in non-competes? Do you need that?
I’ll answer those questions in this third and final installment.
10. Does the agreement need to restrict both competition and solicitation?
This is kind of a trick question, because a restriction on soliciting customers is a restriction on competition. See Is a Non-Solicitation Agreement a Non-Compete? In other words, a “non-solicit” is subject to the same statutory requirements as a “non-compete,” at least in Texas.
Still, many non-competes have one section for restrictions on competition and another section restricting solicitation. This format is often unnecessarily duplicative. I think it is simpler to combine the two in one section.
But the substantive question remains, should the agreement restrict competition generally and solicitation specifically?
There is a case to be made for restricting competition and not getting into the messier issue of solicitation. The problem with a restriction on solicitation is that it almost always leads to factual disputes.
Suppose Dawn Davis leaves her sales position at Paula Payne Windows and goes to work for Real Cheap Windows. The next week, her friend and customer Bob Builder calls her up:
“Hey Dawn, how’s it going?”
“Pretty good, Bob, it’s been a busy week.”
“Yeah, you may not have heard yet, but I left Paula Payne and went to Real Cheap.”
“Wow, I didn’t know that.”
“Well, Bob, I really like the value they provide for their customers.”
“That’s great. You know, I was going to order some more storm windows for that new subdivision project, can Real Cheap give me a good price on those?”
Did Dawn just “solicit” business from Bob? Would it make a difference if Dawn had made the call to Bob, just to chat? Would it make a difference if Dawn had not volunteered that she changed companies?
You can see how “solicitation” creates questions and uncertainty.
In contrast, it’s pretty easy to determine if an employee violates a restriction on “doing business” with a certain customer. If Dawn goes to Real Cheap and Bob then starts buying windows from Real Cheap, that’s “doing business.” We don’t have to get into the whole “solicitation” issue.
Given the kind of factual disputes that often come up, I don’t use the word “solicit” in my form. But I do include a restriction on “urging or causing” a customer to become a customer of the new company.
That, of course, does not entirely solve the problem, because you could have the same kind of factual disputes about “urging” or “causing.” But I think those terms are easier to apply than “soliciting.”
And I think there is some advantage to including a restriction on “urging or causing” in addition to the more general restriction on “doing business.”
11. Should the non-compete state that it is an “independent covenant”?
Yes. The employee will sometimes argue that she is excused from complying with the non-compete because the employer breached the employment agreement first.
To avoid or at least reduce the risk of this argument being successful, I include this clause in my form:
Even without such a clause, the employer could argue that the non-compete is an independent covenant because the employer’s breach of another clause—such as the obligation to pay a bonus or commission—could be separately compensated by damages. But expressly stating the parties’ intent to treat the non-compete as an independent covenant should remove any doubt. See Chambers v. Hunt Petroleum Corp., 320 S.W.3d 578, 584 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010, no pet.) (clause should be treated as an independent covenant if “a breach may be compensated for in damages . . . unless this is contrary to the expressed intent of the parties”) (citing Centex Corp. v. Dalton, 840 S.W.2d 952, 956 (Tex.1992)).
12. Should you have the employee stipulate that the non-compete is reasonable and can be reformed?
This is probably ineffective and unnecessary, but it doesn’t hurt, and it may carry some weight with a judge who is not sophisticated about non-competes.
Most non-competes contain some kind of stipulation that the restrictions are reasonable. In my personal opinion, courts should give these stipulations no weight, especially considering limitations on non-competes are a matter of public policy. But some judges might give some weight to the stipulation, and you might be able to use the stipulation to get the employee to admit the scope of the non-compete is reasonable.
It also doesn’t hurt to include a reformation and severability clause. This is probably unnecessary, because the Texas statute already says the court shall reform an overbroad non-compete. But again, it doesn’t hurt to include it.
So, my form includes the following:
13. Should the non-compete include an “ipso facto” clause granting an injunction?
This is a close call for me. Most non-competes contain stipulations designed to support the employer’s request for an injunction. I call this an “ipso facto” clause. Texas courts vary on whether an ipso facto clause has any effect. See Can a Non-Compete Grant an Injunction by Stipulation?
Personally, I don’t give any weight to a non-compete ipso facto clause. But not everybody agrees with me, and it probably doesn’t hurt to include one. Mine looks like this:
Again, my own view is that this kind of stipulation should have no legal effect, but if the non-compete has an ipso facto clause, I might cite it as at least one of my grounds for an injunction.
14. Should the non-compete include “non-circumvention” language?
Employees often try to “get around” non-competes. “Technically I’m not competing with my former employer,” you can imagine an employee arguing, “I’m just providing consulting services to an LLC that my cousin owns.”
That’s just one example, but you get the idea.
This kind of gambit to circumvent a non-compete is usually not persuasive. If the judge applies the plain, common-sense meaning of the non-compete, this type of argument by the employee should usually fail.
But of course judges don’t always do that, and in fairness to the employee, if the employer drafts the non-compete poorly and its plain language does not prohibit the thing the employee is doing, then that’s the employer’s problem. See, e.g., East Texas Copy Sys., Inc. v. Player, 528 S.W.3d 562, 567-68 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (enforcing plain meaning that allowed employee to avoid non-compete by terminating his own employment without cause).
I try to head off any cleverly contrived arguments by the employee by including the following in my form:
The idea is to avoid any hyper-technical interpretation intended to get around the non-compete. I haven’t had occasion to test it in court yet, but I would rather have it than not.
15. Should the non-compete prohibit making plans to compete?
Hey, why not? My form includes the following:
This is something I came up with that, somewhat surprisingly, I have not seen in other non-competes.
It is common for an employee to make plans to compete while still employed by the employer. And Texas courts have said that making such plans—and even concealing them from the employer—is not a breach of the employee’s quasi-fiduciary duty to the employer. See Fiduciary Duty Lite: What Employees Can and Can’t Do Before Leaving.
The rationale of the employee fiduciary duty cases is employee mobility. But those cases don’t necessarily stop the employer from creating a contractual duty not to make plans or preparations to compete. So I include that commitment in my form.
It’s such a clever idea, I almost feel guilty.
Like I said at the start, I don’t even like non-competes. I think most employers would be better off focusing on keeping their best employees happy, rather than trying to keep their employees from running off with customers. See The Most Effective Form of Non-Compete in Texas (or Anywhere).
But if you’re going to make an employee sign a non-compete, you might as well draft it as effectively as possible.
Zach Wolfe (email@example.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at his firm Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC.
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.