Of the various types of post-employment restrictions imposed on employees, a restriction on the recruitment of former co-workers (sometimes referred to as a “no-poach” or “anti-raiding” clause) is the type most likely to be enforced by a court. As a result, this is one type of post-employment restriction that is frequently drafted without the careful thought generally put in to traditional non-competes and client non-solicitation clauses. But in what could be a foreshadowing of closer judicial scrutiny of co-worker non-solicitation clauses nationwide, the Wisconsin ...
Over the past 24 months, one of the hottest issues in non-compete law has been whether continued at-will employment, by itself, is sufficient consideration for a non-compete.
Last week, in Runzheimer International v. Friedlen and Corporate Reimbursement Services, Inc., the Wisconsin Supreme weighed in on this issue, holding that continued employment is sufficient consideration for a non-compete signed by a current at-will employee. However, the Court expressly qualified this holding by explaining that if an at-will employee is fired “shortly after signing” a ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Trade Secrets Litigation: 2025 Update
- The Buckeye State to End Employer Noncompetes?: Ohio Introduces Bill That Would Ban Employers from Entering into Noncompetes
- Washington State Seeks to Broaden the Definition of “Noncompetition” and Ban Most Noncompetes
- Preparing for Non-Compete Litigation: 2025 Update
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Trade Secret Litigation - Lessons from High-Stakes Group Exits