Call Now - Free Consultation 763-200-6626
Hess & Jendro Law Office, P.A. Hess & Jendro Law Office, P.A.
You relax- let us be responsible.
Menu / Navigate
Secondary Nav

The Current State of Non-Compete Agreements in Minnesota

Minnesota has traditionally been an employee-friendly state on the issue of non-compete agreements. Past court rulings cited the restraint on trade imposed by non-compete contracts when the court decided in favor of employees on these matters.

In light of this position, non-compete agreements are sometimes legal, but must abide by strict standards, including:

  • Independent consideration - The employee must receive a material benefit from the non-compete agreement, unless the contract is signed when the employee begins her or his job.
  • Legitimate employer interest - The contract must serve a legitimate employer interest, such as to protect the employer's trade secrets or goodwill or to recoup a return on investment in specialized job training.
  • Reasonableness - The terms of the non-compete must be reasonable in their substantive scope, duration and geographic area.
  • Blue pencil rule - The court has authority to alter unreasonable terms of an otherwise enforceable non-compete agreement to make the provisions reasonable.

However, the courts have shifted during the past decade in a series of cases alleging breach of non-compete clauses in these circumstances:

  • Independent contractors - In Schmit Towing, Inc. v. Frovik, the court ruled that the independent consideration principle did not apply to independent contractors who were free to contract as they wish.
  • Cash payment as independent consideration - Tenant Construction, Inc. v. Mason addressed what is considered adequate consideration - $500 was enough consideration to validate a non-compete agreement in this case.
  • Long-time employment as independent consideration - The appellate court in Witzke v. Mesabi Rehabilitation Services, Inc. considered the employee's 17 years of promotions, salary increases, training opportunities and job security as sufficient independent consideration.
  • Geographic scope - The court in Medtronic v. Hughes agreed with the former employer that the company competed on a global scale and so the non-compete was not limited to the specific geographic area.
  • Area of marketing - In Sealock v. Petersen, the court enjoined the former employee from marketing in the geographic area restricted by the non-compete agreement, even though his office was physically located outside the restricted area.

Let a Minnesota business litigation lawyer evaluate whether your non-compete agreement is enforceable.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Contact The Firm

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Contact

Hess & Jendro Law Office, P.A.
11070 183rd Circle NW
Suite A
Elk River, MN 55330

Phone: 763-200-6626
Fax: 763-274-1452
Elk River Law Office Map