Companies with Kentucky employees need to review their non-competition agreements. The Kentucky Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision in Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown and Standlee Hay Company, Inc. regarding sufficient consideration to support non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. “Consideration” is the value that employees receive in return for agreeing to the terms of non-competition agreements. At the beginning of the employment relationship, the job offer itself provides the consideration to support these agreements. Current employees, however, already have their jobs and arguably are not receiving anything new for having to sign the agreements. The Kentucky Supreme Court decided that in most instances, continued employment without other changes in terms and conditions of employment is no longer sufficient consideration for employees to enter into non-competition agreements. This change may affect the enforceability of agreements for your employees in Kentucky.
The Kentucky Supreme Court in Creech determined that a former employee did not receive sufficient consideration based on several factors. The court noted the employee received nothing new of value after executing the agreement: no raise, bonus, specialized training, or promotion. He received neither better nor additional employment rights that he would not otherwise have had. The agreement was not part of an overall employment contract, and the employee had worked for many years without a non-competition agreement. Interestingly, the court noted that the employee was not threatened with the loss of his job if he refused to sign the agreement.
Employers with employees in Kentucky may want to consider reviewing whether they are providing any additional benefits to current employees when requiring them to sign non-competition agreements. For non-competition agreements that were obtained sometime after the start of employment, ensure that employees were given additional consideration (raise, bonus, promotion, specialized training, or some other benefit) at the time the agreements were signed. If the consideration is not readily apparent from the agreement or from information in a personnel file, then you may want to consider requiring current employees to resign them with the consideration spelled out in the agreements.
If you have any questions about drafting or enforcing your non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, please contact us.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Labor Law
- Title VII
- FLSA
- NLRB
- Workplace Violence
- Department of Justice
- Coronavirus
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- NLRA
- Diversity
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Federal Trade Commission
- Overtime Pay
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employment Litigation
- IRS
- Litigation
- Medical Marijuana
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Unions
- Whistleblower
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- United States Supreme Court
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Privacy Laws
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
- The Independent Contractor Tug-of-War: Navigating the Latest DOL Shifts
- ICE Raids and Audits – What’s an Employer to Do
- New Online Registration Requirements for Foreign Nationals
- Workplace Violence: Are You Taking Required Steps to Protect Your Employees?
- EEOC & DOJ New Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination: What Does it Mean for Employers?
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?