Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Employment Law StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Non-Authority for Non-Recruitment Covenants Under New York Law

By Richard C. Schoenstein
January 26, 2011

As hiring resumes in the financial services industry and elsewhere, potential employers undoubtedly will renew consideration of the recruitment of employees from competitors. While many employers have written employment contracts with restrictive covenants designed to hinder employees from departing for a competitor, the state and federal courts considering New York law have not uniformly enforced such provisions. Thus, many employers have attempted to utilize more specific contractual limitations on the conduct of former employees, including covenants variously referred to as “non-solicitation,” “non-recruitment,” “non-hire” or “anti-raiding” provisions, which are designed to prevent employees who leave from immediately turning around and poaching their now-former fellow employees to leave with them.

Significantly, the enforceability of a covenant not to solicit or recruit employees of one's former employer has never been addressed by the New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Variations of such provisions have been considered, and sometimes enforced through preliminary injunctions, by trial level New York state and federal courts. But these decisions turn on specific facts and typically fail to address the broad questions with intellectual rigor. Thus, the prevailing notion that non-recruitment provisions are somehow “easier” to enforce than broader non-compete covenants is not supported by case precedent. Instead, the analysis that has been applied to non-recruitment provisions simply mirrors the approach that has been used in typical non-compete cases for years.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.