The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a preliminary injunction enforcing a five-year non-compete agreement against a former employee of a printing business. On its face, the five-year duration is eye-catching. Hence, the question presented by this decision, Mayne v. O’Bannon Publishing Company, Inc., is why a restriction of that length was found to be reasonable?

Here, the former employee, Elizabeth Mayne, had previously owned and operated a printing business in Kentucky. While in the process of closing that business, she accepted a written employment offer from O’Bannon Publishing Company that was contingent on her signing a non-compete that barred her from “directly or indirectly engag[ing] in any activity that competes with the Corporation in the printing business in Harrison County, Indiana or Crawford County, Indiana for a period of five (5) years following [her] termination of employment.”

As a threshold matter, the Appellate Court acknowledged that “five years is a lengthy period of time for these types of restrictions.” Nevertheless, it explained that it had previously upheld five-year non-competes in the employment context.

In this particular case, the Appellate Court noted that Mayne supervised one or two employees; offered direct, personal assistance to business customers; knew business customers’ printing needs well; had a “personal relationship with many of [the company’s] business customers”; and was “the face” of the company. Furthermore, because the non-compete provision only prevented Mayne from competing in two Indiana counties, it did not prevent her from competing in Kentucky – where she previously owned and operated a printing business – and therefore would not preclude her from pursuing printing as a means of support.

Based on these findings, the Appellate Court held that the employer had “presented a prima facie case regarding the reasonableness of the five-year restriction” and that the trial court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction was not erroneous as a matter of law.

This case illustrates how differently courts across the country treat non-competes and how important it is know the law of the pertinent jurisdiction.

Back to Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.