U.S. - Maryland
2018.04.24 Overly-broad Covenants not enforced (Neitzey v. Allen, Montgomery County MD) - see discussion here.
2014.Jun.10 Allegis Group v. Jordan: A Maryland district court enforced non-competition and non-solicitation provisions supported by incentive awards. The former employee collected $1.45 million, which appears to be at risk.
2013.July TEKsystems, Inc. v. Lajiness, 2013 WL 3389062: the Northern District of Illinois applied Maryland law per a contractual choice of law provision, and upheld a 50 mile/18 month restrictive covenant in a recruiter’s employment contract.
Delaware Elevator v. Williams (3/16/2011, Del.Ch. applying MD law), holding as follows:
"The Non-Compete Agreement as drafted is overly broad and unreasonable. Maryland law instructs a court to re-write an invalid restrictive covenant and enforce it to a reasonable extent. I therefore will enforce Williams’s obligation not to compete with Delaware Elevator within a 30-mile radius of the Newark, Delaware office where he worked. The ban will last until January 17, 2012, two years after the end of Williams’s employment. Otherwise, Williams is not restricted from soliciting or working for actual or potential customers of Delaware Elevator, so long as the work takes place outside the no-work zone. In soliciting customers, however, Williams may not use Delaware Elevator’s confidential customer list. Because it is undisputed that Williams has been competing with Delaware Elevator inside the no-work zone and using the customer list, further proceedings are necessary to quantify the resulting damages and address the parties’ other claims."
TEKsystems, Inc. v. Bolton (Maryland U.S.D.C.) (2/4/2010, opinion by J. Bennett) -- "Held: A covenant not to compete is enforceable even where the competing former employee does not solicit his former employer's clients or use its confidential information if the scope of the restrictive covenant is limited to reasonable temporal and geographical limits, the employer is protecting legitimate business interests with the covenant, the employee has unique and specialized skills, there is no undue hardship on the employee to comply with the restriction and the public interest is served by enforcing the restrictive covenant; and the court held that it would extend the duration of the restrictive covenant for so long as the employee was in breach of it." (Quote from Maryland State Bar Association, Business Law Section - see blog.)
Quoting from TEKsystems above. pages 7-8:
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.