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
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- FMLA
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Affirmative Action
- Coronavirus
- Immigration
- Diversity
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Employer Rules
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Overtime Pay
- National Enforcement Plan
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- OSHA
- Privacy
- Holiday Policies
- Artificial Intelligence
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Compliance
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Workplace Accommodations
- Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Paid Leave Laws
- Litigation
- Tax Credit
- IRS
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know