Categories: Court Info

The Essential Guide to Restrictive Covenants

Meta Description: Understand the dual role of restrictive covenants in US law, covering employment agreements (non-competes, non-solicitation) and property deeds. Learn about enforceability, the “reasonableness” test, and the impact of the recent FTC rule change on non-compete clauses.

Unpacking the Power of the Restrictive Covenant in US Law

A restrictive covenant is a contractual provision or clause in a legal document that imposes limitations on a party’s actions. Essentially, it is an agreement that restricts the person giving the covenant from taking certain actions. Far from being a niche topic, these covenants permeate various sectors of American life, most notably in employment contracts and real estate deeds.

In the context of land, these provisions regulate how real property can be used or owned. In the business world, they are designed to protect an employer’s proprietary interests when an employee departs. Given their broad scope and significant impact on an individual’s right to pursue a profession or use their property freely, restrictive covenants are frequently subject to intense legal scrutiny.

Restrictive Covenants in Employment: Protecting Business Assets

In the employment context, restrictive covenants typically become effective upon the separation of employment and are designed to safeguard a company’s legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets, client relationships, and goodwill.

The four primary types of employment-related restrictive covenants include:

Non-Compete Clauses: These are the most restrictive. They prohibit a former employee from working for a competitor or starting a similar business within a specified geographic area and for a defined period of time.
Non-Solicitation Agreements: These prevent an ex-employee from actively pursuing or recruiting the former employer’s customers, clients, or employees for a set duration.
Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): These safeguard confidential or proprietary information, preventing the former employee from disclosing or using trade secrets after leaving the company. The information does not necessarily need to be a formal “trade secret” but must be confidential and non-public.
Non-Dealing Clauses: These prevent an employee from doing business with former clients or suppliers at all, regardless of who initiates contact, which is a broader restriction than non-solicitation.

Tip: The Garden Leave Advantage

Some employment contracts include a “garden leave” clause, which requires an employee to stay home during their notice period while still receiving full pay. The benefit is twofold: it keeps the employee away from the competitive market during the restriction period, and it allows their replacement to establish relationships with clients, making the post-termination restrictive covenant easier to enforce as its duration is effectively reduced.

The Legal Test of Enforceability: Reasonableness is Key

In most states, the enforceability of any restrictive covenant is subject to a common-law “reasonableness” test. Courts look closely at these agreements because they are viewed as restrictions on an individual’s right to earn a living. The burden of proof typically lies with the employer to demonstrate that the restriction is narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate interest.

A covenant is generally considered enforceable only if it meets all three criteria:

Criterion	Description
Legitimate Business Interest	Must protect specific assets like trade secrets, confidential information, customer goodwill, or employee stability.
Reasonable Duration	Must not be excessively long. For employment, 6 to 12 months is generally considered reasonable, with one to two years often being the outer limit.
Reasonable Scope (Geographic/Functional)	The restriction’s geographic area and the scope of prohibited activities must be tied directly to the employer’s business reach and the employee’s specific role.

If a court finds a covenant to be overly broad in duration or scope, it may choose not to enforce it at all, rather than “blue-penciling” (or rewriting) the unreasonable terms to be shorter or narrower. Furthermore, states like California severely limit or outright prohibit non-compete clauses, making state law the ultimate deciding factor.

Major Regulatory Update: The FTC Non-Compete Rule

Caution: Federal Changes on Non-Compete Clauses

In a landmark decision, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a Final Rule that aims to prohibit most new and existing non-compete clauses nationwide, with limited exceptions. The FTC determined that these clauses constitute an “unfair method of competition”.

General Ban: The rule generally bans employers from entering into new non-compete clauses with all workers, including independent contractors.
Existing Agreements: Existing non-competes for all workers, excluding “senior executives,” are rendered unenforceable.
Exception: The ban permits existing non-competes for “senior executives” (defined by a policy-making position and compensation over a statutory threshold) to remain in force, but employers are barred from entering into new ones with this group after the rule’s effective date.
Sale of Business: The rule includes an exemption for non-compete clauses entered into in connection with the bona fide sale of a business entity.

While this rule is facing legal challenges that could impact its final status, its promulgation signifies a massive shift in how these restrictive covenants are viewed and enforced in the employment landscape. Businesses must consult with a Legal Expert to understand how to comply with the new regulation or prepare for its potential enforcement.

Restrictive Covenants in Real Estate: Land Use and History

In real estate, a restrictive covenant is a provision placed on a deed, mortgage, or other recorded instrument that controls how a property owner may use their land. These covenants “run with the land,” meaning they bind all subsequent owners unless they are legally removed or extinguished.

Examples of lawful real estate restrictive covenants include:

Mandating that a property be used only for single-family residences.
Prohibiting the construction of commercial or industrial buildings.
Stipulating requirements for home maintenance, such as fencing, paint colors, or tree height (often found in Homeowner Association – HOA – documents).

The core purpose of these restrictions is to maintain property values, desirability, and the general character of a neighborhood. However, courts will not enforce restrictive covenants if they infringe on civil liberties or are deemed to be of no actual or substantial benefit to the person seeking enforcement.

Historical Context: Discriminatory Covenants

It is critical to note the dark history of restrictive covenants. In the early to mid-twentieth century, racially discriminatory covenants were widespread across the U.S., designed to prevent people of color from owning or occupying property in certain neighborhoods. Though many of these covenants still exist on historical deeds, they were rendered legally unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1948 case of Shelley v. Kraemer, as they violated the Equal Protection Clause. Many states have since passed laws making it easier to formally remove this offensive, void language from recorded documents.

Summary of Restrictive Covenants

For both business owners and property holders, understanding the precise language and legal boundaries of restrictive covenants is paramount. While they serve as vital tools for protecting legitimate interests—be it proprietary business information or neighborhood aesthetics—their restrictive nature means they are always enforced with a degree of judicial skepticism.

Key Takeaways for Businesses and Individuals

Restrictive covenants are agreements limiting actions, primarily found in employment and real estate documents.
In employment, non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure clauses are the most common types used to protect business assets like trade secrets and customer goodwill.
For a covenant to be enforced, it must meet the three-part “reasonableness” test regarding the legitimate business interest, duration, and scope.
The FTC has issued a Final Rule that aims to ban most non-compete clauses nationwide, marking a significant legal development that businesses must monitor and address.
In real estate, lawful covenants regulate land use, but historical discriminatory covenants based on race are unenforceable and illegal.

Card Summary: Know Your Restrictions

A restrictive covenant is a powerful legal instrument that both protects assets and limits individual freedom. Its validity hinges entirely on the principle of reasonableness. Whether drafting an employment agreement or reviewing a property deed, precision in language and a clear connection to a legitimate protective purpose are essential to ensure the covenant will stand up in court. Recent federal action by the FTC is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of non-compete agreements, making a proactive legal review more critical than ever.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What makes a non-compete clause “unreasonable” and therefore unenforceable?

A non-compete is unreasonable if it is too broad in its geographic reach, lasts for an excessively long time (e.g., more than two years in most contexts), or restricts the employee from working in fields unrelated to the former employer’s legitimate business interest.

2. Does the FTC’s new rule ban all non-competes?

No, it has key exceptions. It permits non-competes in the context of a bona fide sale of a business. Additionally, existing non-competes with “senior executives” may remain enforceable, though no new ones can be entered into.

3. What is the difference between non-solicitation and non-dealing?

Non-solicitation only prohibits the former employee from initiating contact to poach clients. A non-dealing clause is broader; it prohibits the employee from engaging in business with former clients or suppliers at all, regardless of whether the client reached out first.

4. If a restrictive covenant is on my deed, can it ever be removed?

Yes. Covenants can be removed or modified through agreement of the benefiting parties, a judicial process (if the covenant is found to have no substantial benefit or violate public policy), or by specific state laws aimed at removing historical, discriminatory language.

5. What are common legitimate business interests protected by covenants?

Courts commonly recognize three interests: proprietary or confidential information (trade secrets), customer or client relationships, and preserving the company’s goodwill.

Disclaimer: This blog post was generated by an AI and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The information is based on general principles of U.S. law, which is subject to change at the state and federal level. Always consult with a qualified Legal Expert to discuss the specifics of your situation before acting on any information presented here.

Restrictive covenant, non-compete agreement, non-solicitation, real estate covenant, employment contract restrictions, enforceability test, FTC non-compete rule, garden leave, trade secrets protection, proprietary information, customer relationships, non-dealing clause, anti-poaching, property deed restrictions, discriminatory covenants, Uniform Trade Secrets Act

geunim