The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a non-compete signed during the course of employment, without additional consideration, is not enforceable even though the agreement stated that the parties “intend to be legally bound.” Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc.

Douglas G. Smith, Melissa L. Evans and David E. Renner from our Pittsburgh office

Since the much-discussed Fifield case from the Illinois appellate court two years ago, all that could be said with confidence was that, unless someone was employed for at least two years after signing a restrictive covenant agreement, its enforceability was highly questionable. Practitioners in Illinois have been recommending that employers provide consideration in addition to

In a case of “first impression”, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that a restrictive covenant entered into after employment has already commenced is unenforceable if not supported by separate valuable consideration.  Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., No. 1223 MDA 2013.

The plaintiff in the case, David Socko, worked for Mid-Atlantic,

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court for “guidance” as to whether additional consideration is required to support a covenant not to compete entered into during an at-will employment relationship.  The case, Runzheimer International, LTD v. Friedlen, involves an action by Runzheimer International, Ltd to enforce a non-compete agreement signed

The variation among states when it comes to non-compete law is a source of frustration for many employers.  And sometimes, similar facts can lead to opposite results depending on the jurisdiction.  A recent decision from the Southern District of Alabama, holding that a non-compete can only be signed after employment begins, shows how Alabama law