loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Indiana Follows Illinois in Key Noncompete Decisions from the Heartland

William Nolan

William A. Nolan

Partner
Columbus Managing Partner

Schild mit dem Zeichen fŸr Information a sign with the symbol for informationWith apologies to Iowa, home to the somewhat famous (infamous?) case of the dental assistant fired for being irresistible and Idaho (not yet featured in BT Currents), Letter of the Law this week features two of the “I states” for some of the more noteworthy noncompete decisions of the last year. As readers know, the key driver in noncompete drafting and enforcement often is the dynamic of varying state laws. Employers and practitioners need to keep tabs on developments outside their own state because, try as they might to stay on their home court, most employers could find themselves litigating a noncompete issue in a state applying its own noncompete rules, and those rules vary in important ways. So it is big news– one of the top noncompete stories of 2013 according to one national legal publication – when an Illinois appeals court held that two years of continued employment was necessary to be sufficient consideration to support a noncompete agreement. Any employer that does business in Illinois should at least considering this decision in its noncompete strategic decisions and discussing its impact with counsel. In 2014 it is Indiana in the news with noncompete decisions. In March we covered an Indiana appeals court decision that was noteworthy for its refusal to apply the blue pencil doctrine, the doctrine followed by courts in some states that allows court to strike offensive language in noncompetes but leave other provisions intact.  The court there held that would be too involved, calling into question the viability of that doctrine in Indiana. Late last month, an Indiana appeals court issued another decision that presents another potential hazard to enforcement. In that case the court held that a 10-day break in employment rendered the noncompete signed prior to the break unenforceable. It is not entirely surprising that a court would expect an employee who leaves and returns to an employer to sign a new noncompete upon returning, but the short duration of the break in this case in eye catching and a reminder to employers of being on high alert to get noncompetes signed in a timely fashion as the particular state law would require. We will continue to watch for noncompete developments in the I states … and the other 25 as well.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Non-Compete Roundup: New Hampshire, Maine and Washington

July 16, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets

Indiana Raises Penalties To Over $132K For Knowing Violations Resulting In Death

April 30, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons

ICE Raids on 7-Eleven Franchise Stores Result in 21 Arrests

January 12, 2018 | Employment Lessons, High Stakes Employment Issues

Noncompetes Q&A: A Look at Ohio

April 3, 2017 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.