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

Financial Advisor Says Fidelity Fired Him for Reporting Securities Violations
READ MORE
Fidelity Pressured Brokers to Sell Customers on Costlier Investments, Ex-Advisor Claims
READ MORE
THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION’S NEW TITLE IX RULES
READ MORE
Dallas employment attorney says the noncompete ban will make it through legal challenges
READ MORE
Regional Spotlight Announcement
READ MORE
Why Wall Street’s biggest wealth managers could face an avalanche of lawsuits thanks to one judge’s ruling
READ MORE
FDA Concedes COVID Shots Trigger Baby Seizures, Re-Recommends Them Anyway
READ MORE
Executive Travel: Deer Valley in Park City, Utah
READ MORE
The Importance Of Giving Back To Community: What Drives Rogge Dunn Group To Improve And Provide Professional Services
READ MORE
LOANDEPOT, CARDINAL SUED OVER ALLEGED DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
READ MORE
HONORING OUR NATION’S HEROES
READ MORE
The Importance of Being Earnest
READ MORE
KEY INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS IN MARCH
READ MORE
Social Media Scrutiny Continue Education Testing Tip and More
READ MORE
Several Developments in January are of Interest to Financial Advisors
READ MORE
Rogge’s Roundup: Several developments in January are of interest to financial advisors — February 16, 2023
READ MORE

Contact Us Today!

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

FILL OUT FORM