Prohibitions against the recruitment of employees and customers after the termination of the employment relationship are usually included in employment contracts. The fundamental question is whether these provisions are governed by law. Prior to 2011, in Texas, it was clear that customer service inactivity was subject to the law. In the pioneering decision of Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011), the Texas Supreme Court analyzed whether stock options constituted sufficient consideration/subsidiary maintenance for a binding agreement. In Dikta, the court said that “agreements that restrict the occupational mobility of former workers or limit their advertising to customers and workers of former employers are trade restrictions and are subject to the law.”  The problem is that no decision had ever decided that non-advertising by workers was a matter for the law. In addition, the attitude of the Texas Supreme Court did not oppose the agreement prohibiting debauchery for employees, which is the Court`s statement on restrictions on the trade saying and the lack of precedent. [ JUMP TO: Click here to answer questions about setting me up to help solve your texas non-compete problem, then click here to read the real customer reviews.] Finally, the behaviour of the employer (e.g. B impure hands or behaviour that does not correspond to the application) can sometimes offer the worker a good outcome to a non-competition clause. Why it was ranked in the top five: The Fifth Circuit confirmed once again that an outgoing employee`s sector limitation, which is not limited to a particular geographic area or the customers the employee has dealt with, is not enforceable under the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act.
Even if a non-compete clause is valid under Texas law, that doesn`t mean that an employer who charges to enforce the agreement automatically takes precedence. . . .