Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

An employee who joined a corporate employer that was not a competitor with his former employer was still enjoined and restrained by restrictive covenants he signed with his former employer when his new employer merged with his prior employer's competitor.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a claim of tortious interference asserted by James Nation, an executive whose former employer suspended severance payments contractually owed to him at the behest of the Defendant, American Capital, Ltd. The former employer was experiencing financial difficulties and the Defendant -- which was also the former employer's majority shareholder and primary creditor - directed suspension of the severance payments in order to preserve cash for operations. The Court's decision relied on the conditional privilege recognized under Illinois law to interfere with contracts, where the defendant acts to protect interests of value greater than or equal to the plaintiff's contractual rights.

From the mid-1970s until a few weeks ago, Illinois law on enforceability of restrictive covenants was clear: employers seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant first had to establish that the covenant was necessary to protect either confidential information or a near permanent customer relationship - the two recognized "legitimate business interests" sufficient to support a restrictive covenant under Illinois law.

In late September 2009, the Illinois Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Ehlers, determined that the "legitimate business interest" test was not supported by any decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Sunbelt court held that, in determining whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable under Illinois law, a court should evaluate only the time-and-territory restrictions contained therein. In doing so, the Fourth District Court of Appeals departed from the clearly established case law of all appellate courts in Illinois (and also previous decisions of the Fourth District).