Posts tagged with "labor law"

Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York: Breach of Fiduciary Duty & Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Types of Restrictive Covenants 

An agreement containing a restrictive covenant is an agreement in which one party agrees to limit his conduct in exchange for a benefit.  Two common types of restrictive covenants include agreements not to compete and agreements not to solicit.  A non-competition agreement is a contract that an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to offer or engage in services that are competitive with the other party.  A non-solicitation agreement is a contract in which an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to poach employees and/or clients of the other party.

Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements may be beneficial to employers because they offer protection for their business models, clients, and/or employees, which they may have spent years developing and training.

Restrictive Covenants Under New York Law

The laws governing non-competition and non-solicitation agreements vary from state to state.  New York law generally recognizes these restrictive covenants as enforceable to the extent they are reasonable.  For more information as to whether or not your restrictive covenants are enforceable, see Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants in New York. 

There are several types of claims available to employers for a violation of a restrictive covenant agreement that are commonly recognized by New York courts.  See Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York .  One such claim is for breach of fiduciary duty by the party whom the employer is seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant against.

Establishing a Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In order to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an employer must first establish that a fiduciary relationship exists between the employer and the party against whom it is trying to enforce the restrictive covenant.  A fiduciary is an individual who maintains a certain legal or ethical responsibility as to another person or entity.

Since fiduciaries are individuals in positions of great trust, they are legally bound to conduct themselves with a higher level of care when it comes to their fiduciary relationship and the duties of their position, as compared to individuals conducting business at arm’s length or otherwise in the absence of a fiduciary relationship.  Fiduciaries, for example, owe their principal (here, the employer) a duty of loyalty.  A duty of loyalty requires that the fiduciary act in the best interest of the employer and avoid all personal and professional conflicts.

If the employer is able to demonstrate that the individual is or was a fiduciary at the time of breach, thereby establishing a fiduciary relationship, the employer must then demonstrate that the fiduciary engaged in misconduct, which, in turn, directly caused damage to the employer.  Pokoik v Pokoik, 115 AD3d 428, 982 NYS2d 67 (1st Dept 2014); Deblinger v Sani-Pine Products Co., Inc., 107 AD3d 659, 967 NYS2d 394 (2d Dept 2013); Kurtzman v Bergstol, 40 AD3d 588, 835 NYS2d 644 (2d Dept 2007).  If a fiduciary owes a duty of loyalty to an employer, directly competing with the employer or soliciting its employees and clients to leave the employer may be deemed a violation of this duty.

Separating a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim from a Contractual Duty

It must be noted that New York courts decline to recognize a breach of fiduciary duty claim if it is not separate and distinct from a contractual duty, which may be pursued via a breach of contract claim.  Brooks v Key Trust Co. Nat. Ass’n, 26 AD3d 628, 809 NYS2d 270 (3d Dept 2006); William Kaufman Organization, Ltd. v Graham & James, LLP, 269 AD2d 171, 703 NYS2d 439 (1st Dept 2000); Kassover v Prism Venture Partners, LLC, 53 AD3d 444, 862 NYS2d 493 (1st Dept 2008); Sally Lou Fashions Corp. v Camhe-Marcille, 300 AD2d 224, 755 NYS2d 67 (1st Dept 2002); Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, Inc., 132 AD2d 162, 521 NYS2d 672 (1st Dept 1987).

Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

A related claim that an employer may have available to it is a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.  This is the type of claim that an employer would assert against a party who encouraged or assisted a fiduciary to breach one of their duties.  The party accused of aiding and abetting need not have any fiduciary duty to the employer.

In order to assert such a claim, an employer must establish 1. A breach of a fiduciary duty by the fiduciary; 2. That the defendant knowingly induced or participated in the breach; and 3. That the employer suffered damages as a result of the breach.  Bullmore v Ernst & Young Cayman Islands, 45 AD3d 461, 846 NYS2d 145 (1st Dept 2007); Global Minerals and Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 824 NYS2d 210 (1st Dept 2006); Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 760 NYS2d 157 (1st Dept 2003).

A defendant knowingly participates in a breach of a fiduciary duty if he provides substantial assistance to the violating fiduciary.  “Substantial assistance” has been defined by the courts to mean that a defendant affirmatively assists, helps conceal or fails to act when required to do so, thereby enabling the breach to occur.  Sanford/Kissena Owners Corp. v Daral Properties, LLC, 84 AD3d 1210, 923 NYS2d 692 (2d Dept 2011); Kaufman, 307 AD2d 113, 760 NYS2d 157.

If you are an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant or a party who is subject to a restrictive covenant, contact Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 for a complimentary consultation to discuss your case.

Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York: Unfair Competition

Types of Restrictive Covenants

An agreement containing a restrictive covenant is an agreement in which one party agrees to limit his conduct in exchange for a benefit.  Two common types of restrictive covenants include agreements not to compete and agreements not to solicit.  A non-competition agreement is a contract that an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to offer or engage in services that are competitive with the other party.  A non-solicitation agreement is a contract in which an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to poach employees and/or clients of the other party.

Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements may be beneficial to employers because they offer protection for their business models, clients, and/or employees, which they may have spent years developing and training.

Restrictive Covenants Under New York Law

The laws governing non-competition and non-solicitation agreements vary from state to state.  New York law generally recognizes these restrictive covenants as enforceable to the extent they are reasonable.  For more information as to whether or not your restrictive covenants are enforceable, see Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants in New York. 

There are several types of claims available to employers for a violation of a restrictive covenant that are commonly recognized by New York courts.  See Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York.  One such claim is unfair competition.  Unfair competition occurs when an individual or entity utilizes dishonest or fraudulent methods to gain an unfair advantage in trade or commerce.  A common example of unfair competition is when one party duplicates the goods or services of another with the intent to confuse or deceive the market/customers, so as to increase its own sales.

Establishing a Claim of Unfair Competition

“The essence of an unfair competition claim under New York law is that the defendant has misappropriated the labors and expenditures of another…Central to this notion is some element of bad faith.”  Vichy Spring Co. v Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1044 (2d Cir. 1980).  In order to demonstrate bad faith, the employer must show that the defendant acted with a “dishonest purpose.”  Kalisch-Jarcho Inc. v City of New York, 448 NE.2d 413, 417 n.5 (N.Y. 1983).  Therefore, negligence or even recklessness is insufficient to demonstrate an unfair competition claim.  Abe’s Rooms, Inc. v Space Hunters, Inc., 833 N.Y.S.2d 138, 140 (2d Dept 2007).  There must be a showing that the defendant intentionally engaged in misconduct.

If an individual agrees to be bound by a non-competition agreement, but then subsequently violates the contract by engaging in dishonest or fraudulent business practices to compete with the employer, the employer may be able to assert an unfair competition claim, among others, if the above conditions are met.


If you are an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant or a party who is subject to a restrictive covenant, contact Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 for a complimentary consultation to discuss your case.

Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York: Unjust Enrichment

Types of Restrictive Covenants

An agreement containing a restrictive covenant is an agreement in which one party agrees to limit his conduct in exchange for a benefit.  Two common types of restrictive covenants include agreements not to compete and agreements not to solicit.  A non-competition agreement is a contract that an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to offer or engage in services that are competitive with the other party.  A non-solicitation agreement is a contract in which an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to poach employees and/or clients of the other party.

Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements may be beneficial to employers because they offer protection for their business models, clients, and/or employees, which they may have spent years developing and training.

Restrictive Covenants Under New York Law

The laws governing non-competition and non-solicitation agreements vary from state to state.  New York law generally recognizes these restrictive covenants as enforceable to the extent they are reasonable.  For more information as to whether or not your restrictive covenants are enforceable, see Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants in New York. 

There are several types of claims available to employers for a violation of a restrictive covenant that are commonly recognized by New York courts.  See Employer Remedies for Violations of Restrictive Covenants in New York.  One such claim is unjust enrichment.

Establishing a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

Three elements must be asserted to establish a claim for unjust enrichment in New York; 1. The defendant derived a benefit; 2. The benefit that the defendant derived was at the plaintiff’s expense; and 3. The basic principles of fairness and equity require restitution.   The benefit derived by the defendant may be either intentional or unintentional.  For example, an employer can still assert a claim for unjust enrichment if the defendant received a benefit in error, rather than with malicious intent.

Often, employees and other individuals who are bound by restrictive covenants are given a benefit in exchange for agreeing to the restriction.  For example, an employee may be offered severance in exchange for agreeing not to compete with an employer upon separation from the employer.  An unjust enrichment claim is commonly asserted by employers when an individual violates their non-competition or non-solicitation agreement though they have received a benefit in exchange for compliance.  The relief for these types of claims often includes a return of the benefit bestowed on the violating party, among other relief that may be just and appropriate under the circumstances.


If you are an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant or a party who is subject to a restrictive covenant, contact Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 for a complimentary consultation to discuss your case.

Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants in New York

What are non-competition and non-solicitation agreements?

A non-competition agreement is a contract that an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to offer or engage in services that are competitive with the other party.  A non-solicitation agreement is a contract in which an individual, often an employee, enters into with another party, often an employer, in which the individual agrees not to poach employees or clients of the other party.  Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements may be beneficial to employers because they offer protection for their business models, clients, and/or employees, which they may have spent years developing and training.

Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements in New York

The laws governing non-competition and non-solicitation agreements vary from state to state.  New York law generally recognizes non-competition agreements as enforceable to the extent they are reasonable.  To determine whether or not a non-competition covenant is reasonable, New York Courts apply a balancing test; Courts weigh the employee’s right to pursue employment utilizing the skills and knowledge he has acquired during his work experience that are important to his trade against the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting his business.

An example of a legitimate business interest is protecting the business from those who may try to pirate intellectual property for their own benefit.   Often these types of agreements limit the individual’s ability to engage in competitive work for a certain period of time in a certain geographic area, namely the market in which the other party offers their services.  The time period and/or geographic limitation are among the factors that a Court would review in assessing the reasonableness, and, therefore enforceability, of the provision.

Using a Non-Solicitation Agreement to Protect an Employer

New York Courts assess the reasonableness of a non-solicitation agreement by analyzing whether or not it serves a legitimate business interest of the employer.  For example, New York Courts have ruled that a non-solicitation agreement cannot prohibit a former employee from having contact with a business’s entire client base if the employee had not previously serviced the entire client base or otherwise maintained relationships with all clients.  This would be overly broad and fail to serve a legitimate business interest.

New York Courts have recognized four types of business interests that an employer may seek to shield by way of a restrictive covenant; i) protection of trade secrets, ii) protection of confidential customer information, iii) protection of an employer’s client base, and iv) protection against irreparable harm where an employee’s services are unique and extraordinary.  Silipos, Inc. v. D. Bickel, No. 05-cv-4356 (RCC), 2006 WL 2265055 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Employee Restraint Cannot Exceed Employer Protection

The New York Court of Appeals has stated that the restraint of these types of agreements shall be “no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate business interest of the employer.”  BDO Seidman v. Hirschberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 388-389 (1999).   This means that these types of provisions cannot be unnecessarily broad or restrictive, particularly if the restriction does not serve to protect the business.  This analysis is very fact specific.  For example, in Good Energy, L.P. v. Kosachuk, 49 A.D. 3d 331, 332, 853 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1st Dep’t 2008), the Court ruled that a non-competition provision that restricted the employee from working anywhere in the United States was unenforceable because the employer only operated in eight states.

The court reasoned that restricting the employee from earning a living throughout the country, including states where the employer did not compete in the market, was unreasonable because, as to at least forty-two states, it did not serve to protect a legitimate business interest.  Alternatively, in Payment Alliance Intern., Inc. v. Ferreira, 530 F.Supp.2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), the court found the same territorial restriction enforceable because the employer did, in fact, operate throughout the United States.  Similarly, New York Courts have held that a restrictive period of six months is unenforceable in some cases while ruling that a restrictive period as long as five years is enforceable in another circumstance.

Considering Public Interest

In addition to assessing the duration, geographic scope, and business interests served by these agreements, when evaluating the enforceability of these types of agreements, New York Courts assess whether or not the provisions protect the public interest.  For example, courts have ruled that it is injurious to the public when a physician is restricted from practicing for an extended period of time within a certain area.

However, this is not to say that all medical professionals are exempt from restrictive covenants; restrictive covenants are generally enforceable against medical and dental professionals if they are reasonably limited in time and geographic scope (presuming such limitations do not injure the public i.e. patients) and serve a legitimate business purpose of the former employer.  Again, the analysis is fact-specific.

Upholding a Non-Competition Agreement in New York

There are certain circumstances in which a New York Court is more likely to deem a non-competition provision enforceable.  For example, if an employee accepts post-termination benefits from the employer (i.e. severance) in exchange for agreeing to abide by the non-compete, the Court is more likely to determine that the restrictive covenant is enforceable.  In such circumstances, the Court may even uphold the non-compete if it is otherwise unreasonable.

It is important to note, however, that some New York Courts have ruled that a non-competition agreement may not be enforced against an employee who is terminated without cause.  In such circumstances, courts have ruled that if the employer did not have a continued willingness to employ the individual, it cannot restrict the employee from finding employment elsewhere.


If you are an employee subject to a restrictive covenant or an employer who is seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant against an employee or former employee, contact Joseph Maya, Managing Partner at Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or directly via email atJMaya@Mayalaw.com for a complimentary consultation to discuss your case.

Receiving Both Unemployment Benefits And Severance In Connecticut

Can I receive unemployment benefits in Connecticut if I am receiving severance from my last job?

Losing a job is a difficult time in any person’s life. In the immediate aftermath, you are left to deal with all the questions about how and where to proceed in navigating the job market. Amid that confusion, employers will also sometimes offer severance packages and request the employee to sign documents upon their discharge. The decisions you make during this time can have a profound effect on your legal rights moving forward.

Claiming Unemployment Benefits

When you are involuntarily terminated from your employment through no fault of your own, your employer should provide you with Form UC-61 from the State of Connecticut Department of Labor. You should use the information contained on the document to accurately respond to the questions contained in the online application for unemployment benefits. It is important that you file your initial claim for unemployment benefits as soon as possible. Unemployment benefit payments are generally not made retroactively. You will need to file an initial claim and then weekly claims to certify that you continue to be unemployed, report job search activities, and confirm that you are ready, willing and able to work, among other things.

In your initial claim for unemployment benefits, there will be a question concerning the gross amount of the severance payment and how many hours or days the payment represents. Section M. of the UC-61 will contain this information. Normally, an applicant’s unemployment benefits will be reduced by the severance payments. The severance payments are allocated to the weeks following the separation of employment.

The next question, however, asks whether any or all of the severance payment was conditional upon signing a separation agreement waiving your right to file a lawsuit against the employer. If the answer is yes, you will need to supply the Department of Labor with a copy of the separation agreement.

Eligibility for Benefits 

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-236(a)(4), an individual is ineligible for benefits for the weeks he or she receives severance “unless the employee was required to waive or forfeit a right of claim independently established by statute or common law against the employer as a condition of receiving the payment.” Accordingly, if the severance payments are contingent on an agreement not to sue the employer, your unemployment benefit should not be reduced. If you were required to waive a common law or statutory right to receive the severance payment, it will not be deducted from your weekly benefit payment. If you did not waive such rights, then it will be deducted from your weekly benefit payment.

For instance, if the separation agreement you signed contains language such as, “in order to be eligible to receive the payments and any other benefits described herein, you are required to agree to the terms contained in this letter, including the General Release, indicate your agreement by signing and returning this letter,” you may still qualify for unemployment benefits.

To protect your claim, it is imperative that you supply the Department of Labor with your initial claim for unemployment benefits and the signed separation agreement as early as practicable.

If you have been recently terminated through no fault of your own and have questions about your eligibility for unemployment benefits in Connecticut or if you need assistance in negotiating a severance agreement, please call Attorney Joseph Maya at (203) 221-3100 or email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Employee Discipline

While there are federal laws in place, employment and labor laws are highly specific to the state in which one is employed. Both Connecticut and New York have very specific rules and guidelines offering certain protections to employers and employees. Whether you are an employee seeking to challenge disciplinary action or termination, or an employer defending such actions, it is important to seek guidance from a lawyer with experience in this particular area of the law. At Maya Murphy, we have attorneys with extensive backgrounds in New York and Connecticut labor law, including issues related to employee discipline.

“At Will” Employment States

Both New York and Connecticut are “at will” employment states. This means that an employee can be fired with little or no explanation in most cases. However, you may have more rights as an employee if you have signed an employment contract. Often, these contracts contain clauses that protect employees from being fired without cause, allowing them to challenge their employer’s actions or seek other legal recourse. An experienced employment lawyer from Maya Law who is familiar with the laws in your state will be able to help you review your employment contract and determine what your rights are in your specific situation.

Exceptions to “At-Will” Employment

In addition to contract employees, other individuals may also be exempt from the rules applied to “at will” employees. Some examples of employees who have different protections include:

  • Government workers
  • Employees who are disciplined or terminated based on sex, race, or other discriminatory grounds
  • At-will employees suffering from harassment

The employment lawyers at Maya Murphy have extensive experience both in negotiating employment contracts and litigating unfair discipline or termination cases. With offices and attorneys in both New York and Connecticut, we are able to represent clients in both states with the high level of knowledge and strong client relationships you need from your attorney. Our firm is dedicated to providing the advantages of a large firm with the close, personal attention of a smaller one.

Contact an Experienced Employment Law Attorney

Our attorneys have years of experience representing employment law clients in the states of New York and Connecticut. With offices located in New York City and Westport, we strive to provide large firm service while maintaining the small firm attention and accountability you deserve.  us today for assistance with your employee discipline questions. Call 212-682-5700 for our New York offices or 203-221-3100 for our Connecticut office.

Is it Illegal for an Employer to Terminate Someone While They Are out on Disability Leave in Connecticut?

No, it is generally not illegal for an employer to terminate and employee while they are on disability leave.  It is common to terminate someone while they are on disability and is not against the law unless the employee is under the FMLA regulations.  These regulations do not apply to every employer so the circumstances and facts of your case must be evaluated closely to determine what the proper course of action might be.  For this reason it would be beneficial to sit down with an experienced employment law attorney to educate you on your rights.


If you have any questions regarding employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Is it Illegal for an Employer to Require Long Shifts without Breaks in Connecticut?

The answer to this question depends on the terms of employment, and any employment contract between an employer and employee.  However, there are still state laws and regulations that set standards for breaks and working conditions.  In order to determine whether your employer’s actions are in violation of any labor law, it would be best to consult with an experienced employment law attorney who can analyze the circumstances surrounding your case and give you an educated answer.


If you have any questions regarding employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

What Does it Mean to be “Grandfathered in” to a Position in Connecticut?

To be grandfathered in means that although your employment has recently begun operating under new rules, you will be allowed to maintain your employment through the old rules you were currently under.  The old standards in which you were previously hired and employed under will continue to apply to your employment.  Although technically you may not have the qualifications to be hired under the new rules, the old standards will continue to apply to you.


If you have any questions regarding employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Enforcing a Non-Compete in Connecticut

If you signed a valid non-compete agreement, try not to just forget about it. Former employers are using non-competes for more than just show now in days, they are enforcing them aggressively. If you are thinking about working for your former employer’s competitor, or in another area that may be covered by a non-compete you previously signed, here are two ways your former employer may try to enforce the previous agreement against you.

Cease and Desist

First, attempted enforcement of a non-compete agreement in Connecticut will likely begin with a Cease and Desist Letter. Once the employer has determined (or has a good faith belief) that a former employee is breaching a non-compete, typically the next step will be to engage legal counsel to send a demand or “cease and desist” letter to the employee.

A well-drafted demand letter contains an accurate summary of the contractual, statutory and common law restrictions that bind the former employee, a summary of the facts showing that the former employee is in breach of his or her non-compete (or statutory or common law), a description of the harm suffered or potential harm the employer may suffer as a result of the former employee’s breach of duties, and a demand for specific actions and written assurances.

In many non-compete situations, it is also appropriate at this stage to send a separate demand letter to the former employee’s new employer setting forth the facts and arguments as to why the new employer’s engagement of the former employee will unlawfully interfere with the non-compete between the former employee and old employer.

Cease and desist letters must convey the message that the former employer takes the former employee’s continuing obligations seriously and will not allow its goodwill, trade secrets or confidential information to be unlawfully misappropriated. These letters are a critical tool because many non-compete situations are resolved by settlement following the exchange of the cease and desist letter and response.

Going to Court

Second, and more drastically, you may be taken to court. A former employer may file suit for a temporary restraining order, an injunction, and damages. If the non-compete situation is not resolved by the sending of cease and desist letters, then the employer must assess whether it will file a lawsuit to enforce the non-compete. Unlike most lawsuits, where the goal typically is to win a judgment awarding money damages after what is usually a lengthy process leading to trial, the goal in most non-compete situations is to obtain an immediate order from the court.

This order is called a preliminary injunction (or in certain emergency situations a temporary restraining order). A preliminary injunction will order the former employee (and new employer) to stop taking certain actions, such as working for a competitor altogether, calling on certain customers for the new employer, or using or disclosing confidential and proprietary information.

If the former employee or new employer violates the preliminary injunction, they are in contempt of court. The idea is that the preliminary injunction will stop the conduct, preserve the status quo between the parties, and prevent further harm to the former employer. A permanent injunction is issued after trial.

Seeking a Preliminary Injunction

Obviously, the decision to file suit and seek a preliminary injunction must be evaluated carefully given the expense and uncertainty of litigation. This is particularly so in non-compete situations where the outcome of litigation is often influenced to a large degree by particular judges’ views on non-competes generally.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the employer must establish that it is entitled to such relief by showing that: the employer is likely to prevail on the merits of the case at trial; the employer faces irreparable harm; the balance of harm (that facing the employer as compared with the harm the former employee could suffer by, for example, not being able to work for a particular new employer) favors the issuance of an injunction; and the public interest is not adversely affected by the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

In addition to assessing whether this standard can be met, the employer should pause to consider whether it will come to court with “clean hands” (that is, whether it has acted fairly). The issuance of a preliminary injunction is a matter squarely in the judge’s discretion and is a matter of equity (fairness), so it is important that the employer not overreach but rather only seek the protection necessary to prevent the misappropriation of goodwill, trade secrets, and confidential information.

Considerations to Make Before Filing a Lawsuit

Similarly, before embarking on litigation, the employer should evaluate whether it has breached any obligation to the former employee (such as the obligation to pay salary or commissions). Such facts will influence whether the court will grant an injunction, and also will likely result in the assertion of counterclaims against the employer in the lawsuit.

The assessment of whether to file a lawsuit must be made quickly. Delay undermines the argument that the former employee’s current actions are actively harming the employer’s business, and may in rare cases result in the former employee filing suit to obtain a declaration from the court that the non-compete is unenforceable.

If an employer is trying to enforce a non-compete against you, or if you are an employer looking to enforce a non-compete against a former employee, let the experience Employment Law Group of Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT help you with this process.

With decades of employment law experience in the courts of both Connecticut and New York, the employment law attorneys of Maya Murphy can surely meet your non-compete needs. Call 203-222-MAYA or email Ask@mayalaw.com today to schedule a consultation!

Credit: Mbbp.com, Robert Shea, Scott Connolly