A non-solicitation agreement usually seeks to restrict solicitation of customers and/or employees. Those covenants’ functions overlap but are also different. Thus, we’ll refer here to “Customer Non-Solicits” and “Employee Non-Solicits.” A little history about both types is a good place to start.

Pre-2011

Non-solicit lawyers and courts generally agreed that Texas’s Non-Compete Act (the “Act”) covered Customer Non-Solicits. Thus, those Customer Non-Solicits were required to comply with Act as an anti-trust exception. But litigators and courts were uncertain whether the Act applied to Employee Non-Solicits. This uncertainty was significant because if Employee Non-Solicits were not covered by the Act, then the covenant was simply viewed as a contractual provision (not an anti-trust exception), which is a much lower bar for enforcement.

Post-2011

After Texas’s Supreme Court’s Marsh opinion, many litigators and courts began following the court’s logic to show that Employee Non-Solicits were also covered by the Act. Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011). Now, Texas courts appear to overwhelmingly support that both Employee Non-Solicits and Customer Non-Solicits are covered by the Act. See e.g., Ally Financial v. Gutierrez, No. 02-13- 00108-CV, 2014 WL 261038 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 23, 2014, no pet.).

Key Considerations of a Non-Solicitation Agreement

To comply with the Act, a non-solicitation agreement must be carefully drafted. Specifically, there are five primary issues to cover.

Ancillary

Non-solicitation agreements must be “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made.” To be “ancillary to or part of” an otherwise enforceable agreement, the business interest being protected must be reasonably related to consideration given. See Marsh, 354 S.W.3d at 775. Thus, the covenants requires a protectable business interest for the employer (e.g., protecting confidential information) and consideration to the employee (e.g., confidential information, training, or goodwill). See Marsh, 354 S.W.3d at 775.

Scope

In addition, non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable scope of restrained activity. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). However, this “reasonable” determination varies on a case-by-case basis. For example, a restriction against soliciting all company employees was not reasonable in Forum US, Inc. v. Musselwhite, No. 14-17-00708, 2020 WL 4331442 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th], July 28, 2020, no pet. h.).

Geography

Non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable geographic restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). Moreover, to comply with this restriction, careful drafting often considers where the employee works and locations of her customers (Customer Non-Solicit) and co-workers (Employee Non-Solicit).

Time

Lastly, non-solicitation agreements require a reasonable time restriction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50(a). This limitation is highly fact-dependent and requires looking at the rationale for the restriction and the business interest being protected.

In short, enforcing non-solicitation agreements may include demand letters, pre-suit litigation, lawsuits, and injunctions. Compared to non-compete covenants, courts have generally been more favorable to entering injunctions that enforce non-solicitation agreements. Furthermore, whether enforcing or defending, parties should consider issues such as confidentiality; counterclaims; related claims (e.g., fiduciary duty and tortious interference); and points raised on our other pages, such as trade secrets [HYPERLINK] and non-competes.

The Dallas employment lawyers at Rogge Dunn Group routinely draft non-solicitation agreements and litigate non-solicitation agreement lawsuits. To learn more about the non-solicitation agreement attorneys at Rogge Dunn Group, visit their attorney biographies here:

To contact a non-solicitation agreement attorney at Rogge Dunn Group, click here.

MEDIA

An Update on Title IX Changes
READ MORE
Workplace Harassment Lawyer: When You Might Need One
READ MORE
April 29, 2021: Rogge Dunn Group Welcomes Attorney Anna Richardson to the Team
READ MORE
Federal Court of Appeals Affirms Jury Verdict Won by Rogge Dunn Group Overtime Lawyer that our Client was not Required to Pay Overtime Under its Commission Plans
READ MORE
April 15, 2021: Rogge Dunn of Rogge Dunn Group Names Classroom at SMU Business School
READ MORE
Texas Lawyer Publishes Article Written by Rogge Dunn on How Employers Should Handle COVID-19 Vaccine Open Eligibility
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Group Represents Female General Counsel Against COVID Retaliation & Bullying
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Interviewed on Fox 26 Houston: Can Employers Require Vaccinations?
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Quoted in Fox 4 KDFW News Segment on the National Emphasis Program and Federal Agencies’ COVID-19 Policies
READ MORE
Apr. 28, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak for the DAYL Trial Skills Boot Camp Spring CLE Zoom Webcast
READ MORE
Employee Commission Chargeback Law: Commission Today, Gone Tomorrow
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Quoted in Dallas Morning News About Mask Policies of Major Retailers in Dallas
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Interviewed by CBS 11 News on Reopening Texas
READ MORE
Apr. 19, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak in Live Webcast on Commercial Litigation Trends, Updates, and Challenges Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
READ MORE
Chase Potter Named to 2021 Best Lawyers Under 40 by D Magazine and Secures Multi-Million Dollar Zoom Verdict
READ MORE
Jan. 26, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak in LIVE CLE Webcast on Demystifying the Current Landscape of Broker-Dealers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
READ MORE

Contact Us Today!

Contact us to learn how we can help answer your legal questions.

FILL OUT FORM