Litigation: Illinois Supreme Court rejects the “legitimate business interest” test
A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision provides corporate counsel with an overdue reminder to re-examine the language and scope of their companies non-compete agreements. While non-compete agreements are often swept under the rug when a new employee begins work, the potential outcomes are catastrophic.
May 03, 2012 at 06:01 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision provides corporate counsel with an overdue reminder to re-examine the language and scope of their companies' non-compete agreements. While non-compete agreements are often swept under the rug when a new employee begins work, the potential outcomes are catastrophic. States can differ on their views of non-compete agreements, so it is crucial to have a hold on how your state treats these restrictive covenants.
In Reliance Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a non-compete agreement is valid and reasonable if all three components are met:
- It protects, but does not exceed, the legitimate business interests of the employer
- There is no undue hardship on the employee
- There is no harm to the public
The court went on to eliminate the various “legitimate business interest” tests that have sprung up over the past 36 years and instead chose to determine a legitimate business interest for each case, based on the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, in Illinois, a non-compete agreement must meet the three-pronged test illustrated above before a court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a legitimate business interest existed.
In New York, the decisions on non-compete agreements follow the same standard. The restrictive covenant is reasonable if the non-compete agreement:
- Is no greater than required for the legitimate interest of the employer
- Does not impose undue hardship on the employee
- Is not injurious to the public
New York courts tend to uphold non-compete agreements when the underlying facts involve trade secrets, confidential customer information, unique employee services, and relations or goodwill between employers and clients.
In somewhat of a contrast to Illinois and New York, California voids all non-compete agreements unless it falls under certain rare exceptions. The California Business and Professions Code states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” California strongly supports the public policy behind the right to work for anyone and in the field of one's choice. It encourages free competition and mobility for employees.
Protect your company by taking a moment to look over your organization's non-compete agreement. A simple change to the language, timing or geographic area may mean the difference between keeping your clients and helplessly watching business walk out the door.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Conspiracy Suits Against Quinn Emanuel, Roc Nation Moved to Federal District Court
- 2'Knowledge of Mismatch:' Fed Judge Offers Guidance on How to Hold Banks Accountable for Erroneous Transfers
- 3PAGA Claims Must Now Be 'Headed'
- 4Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 5'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250