Restrictive Covenants within the Tenth Circuit

Throughout the Tenth Circuit, states range of their enforcement of restrictive covenants. Wyoming, Kansas, and New Mexico govern the usage of restrictive covenants by way of frequent legislation whereas Utah, Colorado, and Oklahoma govern by way of the statute. Oklahoma is exclusive in that it prohibits restrictive covenants by way of the statute. Within the different 5 states, regardless of the variations in governing authority, most of the elements used are related given the broadly accepted “reasonableness” normal many jurisdictions have adopted as a metric for adjudicating the propriety of such agreements.

state
Legislation governing restrictive covenants
Restrictive covenants in employment agreements are prohibited:
Oklahoma It is OK. stats. Ann. tit. 15, 219A

Usually, restrictive covenants in employment agreements are usually not enforceable apart from direct solicitation of a former employer’s clients.

“A. An individual who makes an settlement with an employer, whether or not in writing or verbally, to not compete with the employer after the employment relationship has been terminated, shall be permitted to have interaction in the identical enterprise as that carried out by the previous employer or in an identical enterprise as that carried out by the previous employer so long as the previous worker doesn’t straight solicit the sale of products, providers or a mix of products and providers from the established clients of the previous employer.

B. Any provision in a contract between an employer and an worker in battle with the provisions of this part shall be void and unenforceable.”

state
Legislation governing restrictive covenants
Restrictive covenants in employment agreements could also be enforced if:
Wyoming

Frequent Legislation

See Hassler v. Circle C Res.505 P.3d 169 (Wyo. 2022)

  1. It’s in writing;
  2. a part of a contract of employment;
  3. based mostly on affordable issues;
  4. affordable in length and geographical limitations;
  5. and never in opposition to public coverage.
Kansas

Frequent Legislation

Wichita Clinic, PA v. Louis185 P.3d 946 (Kan. App. 2008)

  1. It protects a respectable enterprise curiosity of the employer;
  2. doesn’t create an undue burden on the worker;
  3. is just not injurious to the general public welfare;
  4. comprises affordable time and territorial limitations;
  5. supported by legitimate issues;
  6. and ancillary to the contract.
New Mexico

Frequent Legislation

See Bowen v. Carlsbad Ins. & Actual Est., Inc.724 P.second 223 (NM 1986)

  1. It’s inside affordable limits of time and house.
  2. It’s ancillary to a sale of a enterprise.
Utah Utah Code Ann. 34-51-201; 34-51-202
  1. It’s for a interval of, at most, one 12 months after the person’s termination date. *applies to agreements entered into on or after Could 10, 2016
  2. It’s a part of an affordable severance settlement mutually and freely agreed upon in good religion at or after the time of termination.
  3. It’s associated to or arising out of the sale of a enterprise, if the person topic to the restrictive covenant receives worth associated to the sale of the enterprise.
Colorado Colo. Rev. stats. Ann. 8-2-113
  1. It’s a contract for the acquisition and sale of a enterprise or the belongings of a enterprise.
  2. It’s a contract for the safety of commerce secrets and techniques.
  3. It’s a contractual provision offering for restoration of the expense of training and coaching an worker who has served an employer for a interval of lower than two years.
  4. It pertains to government and administration personnel and officers and workers who represent skilled workers to government and administration personnel.

*A violation of this part constitutes a category 2 misdemeanor.