February 25, 2021

Volume XI, Number 56

Advertisement

February 25, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Federal Standard for Enjoining Breach of Non-Compete Agreement Differs from Florida’s, Eleventh Circuit Rules

Federal courts must balance the potential harm to the former employee with the threatened injury to the party seeking to enforce a non-competition agreement when deciding whether to grant an injunction enforcing the agreement, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled, possibly changing how courts evaluate restrictive covenants in employment agreements in Florida. Transunion Risk and Alt. Data Solutions, Inc. v. MacLachlan, No. 15-10985 (11th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015) (unpublished). Florida courts are expressly prohibited by the state’s non-compete statute (Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(g)1) from considering the hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.

The appeals court agreed with the district court’s decision to presume irreparable harm for the violation of a non-compete agreement. The Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (“Rule 65”) was consistent with the state law that creates a presumption of irreparable harm (Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(j)), noting that the former employer had established a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm and that the former employee did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this conclusion.

However, the appellate court found that Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(g)1 governs theenforceability of restrictive covenants, and not the enforcement of an already enforceable restrictive covenant controlled by Rule 65. Because federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction (where state law claims may be in issue, but a federal court can decide the case because the parties are from different states) apply federal procedural law to the exclusion of any contrary state procedure, the Eleventh Circuit held that the requirement to balance the harms under Rule 65 controlled.

When deciding whether to enforce non-competes in federal or state court, companies should keep in mind that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must consider the harm of enjoining a former employee against the potential harm to the former employer because of the breach of the non-compete. Florida state courts, however, are prohibited from considering the harm to an enjoined individual.

Advertisement
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume V, Number 285
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David Gobeo, Jackson Lewis, discrimination legal counsel, wage hour claim attorney,
Principal

David M. Gobeo is a Principal in the Miami, Florida, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He concentrates his practice on employment litigation, including discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour claims.

Mr. Gobeo is experienced in handling lawsuits arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act; as well as litigating non-compete and trade secret...

305-577-7600
Advertisement
Advertisement