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

Rogge Dunn Interviewed by CBS 11 News on Reopening Texas
READ MORE
Mar. 25, 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
Rogge Dunn Quoted in CNBC Article Regarding Covid Vaccine Side Effects and Compensation Lawsuits
READ MORE
Jan. 15, 2021: Rogge Dunn to Speak at the Texas Bar’s 29th Annual Advanced Employment Law Seminar on How to Win an Employment Case at Trial
READ MORE
Jan. 13, 2021: Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister to Speak in Live Webcast on Obtaining a TRO Against Former Employees
READ MORE
Insight From an Executive Contract Attorney: How to Get the Most Out of an Executive Employment Contract
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Answers Questions in D Magazine Article About the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
READ MORE
Obtaining a TRO Against a Former Employee: Texas Lawyer Publishes Article Written by Rogge Dunn and Greg McAllister
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Quoted in CBS 11 News Article Regarding Employer Control over Holiday Travel Plans
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Quoted in Reuters Article About Employer Options for COVID-19 Vaccine Policies
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Gives Insight on CNBC Article Regarding Covid Vaccine Labor Laws
READ MORE
Negotiating a Severance Agreement: How Can a Severance Negotiation Lawyer Help?
READ MORE
Rogge Dunn Quoted in CBS 11 Article on Labor Laws Surrounding COVID-19 Vaccine
READ MORE
COVID-19 and Employment Discrimination of Older Employees
READ MORE

Contact Us Today!

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

FILL OUT FORM