– The Third District Court of Appeals rejected an employee’s argument that a non-compete provision in his employment agreement did not apply after he was terminated following the expiration of the agreement.
– The court clarified that the non-compete provision remained effective because the agreement contained language showing the parties intended for it to survive the expiration or termination of the agreement, even though the employment relationship continued on an at-will basis.
– The case involved International Dermatology Research, Inc. hiring Dr. Alonso under an employment agreement, which included a non-compete provision, and the court’s decision affirmed the enforceability of the provision after the term of the employment contract expired. 1. The non-compete provision of the Agreement was in effect when Dr. Alonso began working for Driven Research.
2. The non-compete restrictive covenant was valid and enforceable.
3. The injunction was deficient as it lacked sufficient detail describing the acts restrained by the employee. – The non-compete provision in the employment agreement survived the expiration of the agreement and remained effective when the employment relationship continued after the agreement expiration.
– The non-compete provision was found to be valid and enforceable by the appellate court.
– The employer demonstrated a legitimate business interest in its substantial relationships with existing customers, and the restriction was deemed necessary to protect the business interests, despite the employee’s argument. – The appellate court found that employers must prove a substantial likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm, and that the injunction would serve the public interest to obtain a temporary injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement.
– The injunction itself was found to be deficient because it did not describe in reasonable detail the act or acts the employee was prevented from doing.
– Employers need to include a “survival” provision in employment agreements to ensure that non-compete and confidentiality provisions remain effective after an employee’s separation.
– It is advisable for companies to audit existing agreements and ensure that new employee agreements include survivor provisions for restrictive covenants. – The injunction should specify the act, acts, or activity to be restrained in reasonable detail.
– The decision in Javier Alonso-Llamazares, M.D., v. International Dermatology Research, Inc. provides enforceable non-compete, confidentiality, and survival language.
https://www.rumberger.com/insights/florida-still-strongly-favors-employers-non-compete-agreements/
Leave a Reply