Contact Us
Categories
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- remote work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- work from home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Intellectual Property
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Lane v. Franks
- Non-exempt employees
- Crystalline Silica
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Northwestern
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- United States v. Windsor
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Crisis Management
- Employee Arrests
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Who Breached First? Protecting the enforceability of an employer’s no-compete agreement in Kentucky.
Many employers are aware of the substantial benefits a no-compete agreement can provide. No-compete agreements (also referred to as covenants not to compete) offer effective protection for an employer’s legitimate business interests, including but not limited to preventing former employees from taking away clients or customers[i] and protecting against the use and dissemination of an employer’s confidential and/or proprietary information.[ii] Indeed, even Kentucky courts acknowledge that no-compete agreements serve as a “valuable business tool” for employers. [iii]
Although many employers recognize the value of consulting a knowledgeable attorney to ensure that the no-compete agreement adequately addresses the employer’s business interests and is properly executed, many are unaware that an employer’s acts after executing the no-compete agreement can affect its enforceability.
In Kentucky, a contract – including an employment agreement containing a no-compete provision – may be rescinded where non-performance, misrepresentation, or breach is substantial or material.[iv] Kentucky courts expressly recognize that a former employee’s allegation that his or her employer breached the employment contract first may constitute a valid defense against the employer’s attempt to enforce its no-compete agreement.[v] Simply put, the court may prohibit an employer from enforcing an otherwise valid no-compete agreement if it finds that the employer first breached a material term of that agreement.
Importantly, not all employer actions will constitute a breach of an employment agreement, particularly if the breach is “slight” or “inconsequential.”[vi] Kentucky courts analyze an employer’s acts within the context of the surrounding circumstances and the specific terms of the no-compete agreement. Courts applying Kentucky law have held that the employer first breached the employment agreement in a number of cases and for various reasons, specifically including instances in which the employer:
a) Reduced the exclusive territory reserved for the employee;[vii]
b) Terminated the employee within a few months after executing the no-compete agreement;[viii]
c) Terminated an employee in a particularly harsh or unjust manner;[ix] or
d) Engaged in other acts which strongly indicate bad faith.[x]
The court’s inquiry as to whether an employer first breached the employment agreement is extremely fact-specific. To that end, it is imperative that an employer consult an attorney to not only ensure that its no-compete agreement adequately protects its business interests, but also that acts performed by the employer after signing the no-compete agreement do not breach a material term of employment. An attorney with genuine experience in employment law can help guide an employer to ensure that its acts will not hinder the enforcement of a no-compete agreement and can ultimately protect the employer’s legitimate business interests from potential harm.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
[i] Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram Assocs., Inc., 622 S.W.2d 681, 686 (Ky. App. 1981).
[ii] Crowell v. Woodruff, 245 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Ky. App. 1951).
[iii] Hammons v. Big Sandy Claims Servs., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 313, 315 (Ky. App. 1978).
[iv] Evergreen Land Co. v. Gatti, Ky. App, 554 S.W.2d 862, 865 (1977).
[v] Webb v. Wagon, Inc., 255 S.W. 2d 459 (Ky. App. 1953).
[vi] Fay E. Sams Money Purchase Pension Plan v. Jansen, et al., 3 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); see also S. Wabash Communs., Ltd. v. Union County Broad. Co., 69 Fed. Appx. 285, 289 (6th Cir. Ky. 2003).
[vii] Webb v. Wagon, Inc., 255 S.W.2d at 461.
[viii] Crowell v. Woodruff, 245 S.W.2d 447 (1951).
[ix] Lantech.com v. Yarbrough, 2007 WL 2669115 (6th Cir. 2007).
[x] Id.