May 22, 2022

Volume XII, Number 142

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Illinois Supreme Court’s Decision in Reliable Fire Broadens Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants

Many clients who deal regularly with employee restrictive covenants have eagerly awaited the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo et al. The court was faced with answering the question of whether employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants must show a legitimate business interest—in, for example, customer relationships and/or confidential information—in addition to demonstrating the reasonableness of the time, territory and activity restraints. There has been disagreement recently among the Illinois appellate courts as to whether a protectable interest need be shown at all, a position which, if adopted by the supreme court, would significantly alter how restrictive covenants are written and enforced in Illinois.

On December 1, 2011, the court issued its decision in Reliable Fire (2011 IL 111871) and clarified the analytical framework under which Illinois courts should examine the enforceability of restrictive covenants. The court held that employers must demonstrate a legitimate business interest, and held further that whether such interest exists “is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the individual case.” The court further held that various factors should be considered in this analysis, including, but not limited to, the near-permanence of customer relationships, the employee’s acquisition of confidential information through the employment relationship, and time and place limitations. None of these factors, the court held, is generally more important or carries more weight than any other, but rather the weight to be afforded each will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case.

The court’s announcement of the applicable framework does not provide clarification with respect to how restrictive covenants should be drafted or greater predictability as to when they will be enforced. Instead, the totality-of-circumstances test makes it evident that each covenant will rise or fall based on the facts of each individual case. Further, as the court indicated, while appellate court precedent over the past three decades remains intact, that precedent only provides “nonconclusive examples of applying the promisee’s legitimate business interest, as a component of the three-prong rule of reason . . . .” That three-part test will require the lower courts in Illinois to determine, based on the facts of each case, whether (1) the restraint in question is necessary to protect a legitimate interest of the employer; (2) the restraint imposes a hardship on the employee or the public; and (3) the extent or scope of the restraint is otherwise reasonable.

In practical terms, the supreme court’s decision will make it more difficult for the lower courts in Illinois to decide, on a motion to dismiss, that a covenant is facially overbroad and unenforceable. Rather, courts will be inclined to allow restrictive covenant cases to proceed to the discovery, preliminary injunction and trial stages so that a full (or fuller) examination of the facts of each case can be made. Of course, whether this outcome can be considered more favorable to employers or employees will, likewise, depend on the facts and circumstances of each situation. Most of our practitioners agree that the Reliable Fire decision will at least initially lead to an increase in litigation involving noncompetition covenants, and may also prompt a renewed push for the Illinois legislature to intervene to enact a statute governing the permissible scope of noncompetition agreements in Illinois.

© 2022 Vedder PriceNational Law Review, Volume I, Number 343
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Thomas R. Dee, Vedder price law firm, Litigation attorney
Shareholder

Thomas R. Dee is a shareholder at Vedder Price P.C. and a member of the Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Areas of the firm.  He has extensive trial experience in complex commercial matters, including breach of contract, products liability, trademark, copyright and patent infringement, trade secret violations and enforcement of restrictive covenants.  Mr.Dee has substantial experience in actions involving temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

312-609-7746
James V. Garvey, Litigation Attorney, Vedder Price Law Firm
Shareholder

James V. Garvey is a Shareholder at Vedder Price and a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Area.  He maintains a broad litigation and counseling practice covering a range of substantive areas in both federal and state courts throughout the country. He has handled litigation and trial work for numerous major corporate clients and individuals on matters involving complex trust and financial institutions issues, directors and officers liability, antitrust and trade regulation, toxic tort exposure, products liability, psychiatric malpractice, employer-union and employer-employee relations...

312-609 7712
Anthony J. Ashley, Vedder Price Law Firm, Litigation Attorney
Shareholder

Anthony J. Ashley joined Vedder Price in 1998 and is currently a Shareholder in the Litigation practice area. Mr. Ashley has represented clients in pretrial, trial and appellate proceedings in state and federal courts across the United States involving complex commercial matters, including executive employment contracts and compensation, professional liability, RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation and environmental liability. He also has extensive experience with emergency injunctive proceedings at both the state and federal levels

312-609-7884
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement