Non-compete agreements: How fiduciary duty and covenants not to compete restrict managers’ mobility

• Published in: Business horizons Vol. 65; no. 2; pp. 215 - 225
• Main Authors: Sellers, April E., Fort, Timothy L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.03.2022
• Subjects: Business ethics; Fiduciary duty; Non-compete agreements; Restrictions on employment; Fiduciary duty; Non-compete agreements; Restrictions on employment; Business ethics
• ISSN: 0007-6813; 1873-6068
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.043

Companies spend time and money training employees; in the case of a merger or acquisition, they spend resources such as cash, stock, and debt. It makes sense, then, that they do not want an employee to take the expertise the company underwrote to a competitor. Thus, employment contracts will often include non-compete clauses—sometimes known as covenants not to compete—which state that the employee cannot move to a competitor for a certain period of time. Though not all employees have the heightened fiduciary duty of board members and officers, they frequently have signed agreements that, at least on paper, restrict their employment mobility. Not only have officers and board members often signed such agreements as well, but they also have fiduciary duties further restricting their new employment plans. In decades of teaching courses in the legal environment of business as well as in business ethics, no topic flummoxes students more than this one. After all, in a free country, a person should be able to work where they wish, right? How can such restrictions be fair? Legally and ethically, this is a complicated area and one in which the old lawyer’s answer—it depends—is true. This article provides some parameters for employees and employers to know when fiduciary duty precludes certain employees from moving to a new company, including when those are legal in what ways they are fair.