Eureka Laundry Co. v. Long
131 N.W. 412, 146 Wis. 205, 1911 Wisc. LEXIS 124 (1911)
Rule of Law:
Restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which limit an employee's ability to solicit former customers or engage in a competing business for a reasonable time and geographic area, are valid and enforceable by injunction if they are necessary for the fair protection of the employer's legitimate business interests and do not unreasonably restrict the employee's rights.
Facts:
- Grand Union Laundry Co. operated a laundry business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
- H.N. Carrick was employed by Grand Union Laundry Co. and became familiar with its customers on Route 13.
- Carrick entered into an employment contract with Grand Union Laundry Co. that included a restrictive covenant.
- The covenant stipulated that during his employment and for two years thereafter, Carrick would not solicit laundry trade from any customers he supplied for Grand Union Laundry Co. during his employment.
- The covenant further stated that during his employment and for two years thereafter, Carrick would not directly or indirectly engage in the laundry business in the part of Milwaukee known as Route 13.
- Carrick subsequently left his employment with Grand Union Laundry Co.
- After leaving employment, Carrick engaged in acts that violated the terms of the restrictive covenant by competing in the prohibited area and soliciting former customers.
Procedural Posture:
- Grand Union Laundry Co. initiated legal action, seeking an injunction against H.N. Carrick to prevent him from violating a restrictive covenant in his employment contract.
- The trial court found that Carrick's services were 'ordinary' and, presumably based on this, issued an order denying the injunction or dissolving a previously granted one, aligning with the respondent's argument that injunctions for personal services require 'unique' skills.
- Grand Union Laundry Co. appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restrictive covenant in an employment contract, preventing a former employee from soliciting the employer's customers or engaging in a competing business within a reasonable time and geographic scope, constitute a valid and enforceable agreement, even if the employee's services are not unique or extraordinary?
Opinions:
Majority - Vinje, T.
Yes, a restrictive covenant in an employment contract, preventing a former employee from soliciting the employer's customers or engaging in a competing business within a reasonable time and geographic scope, constitutes a valid and enforceable agreement, regardless of whether the employee's services are unique or extraordinary. The court found no substantial difference in principle between protecting a business being acquired and protecting an established business from acts by a former employee who has become familiar with its customers. Both types of contracts, when reasonably limited in time, space, and extent of trade, serve a legitimate purpose: to protect the employer's business interests. The court reasoned that what is reasonably necessary for the protection of a legitimate business ultimately promotes the best interests of its employees. In industries like the laundry business, where employees frequently interact with customers and develop personal relationships, such protection is crucial for employers to retain patronage. The court clarified that the critical distinction in this case was not about compelling personal services or retaining an employee, but about preventing specific post-employment acts that would directly injure the plaintiff's business, which the employee had specifically agreed not to do. Equity provides the adequate remedy for breaches of such covenants, as an action at law for damages would be insufficient. The cases cited by the respondent, which argued against injunctive relief for ordinary services, were distinguished because they primarily dealt with attempts to retain employees or prevent them from entering any other employment, rather than enforcing specific negative covenants designed to protect the employer's customer base or trade secrets after employment ceased.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the enforceability of reasonable restrictive covenants in employment contracts in Wisconsin, even when the employee's services are 'ordinary' rather than 'unique' or 'extraordinary.' It distinguishes between injunctions aimed at compelling specific performance of personal services (which generally require unique skills) and injunctions aimed at preventing a former employee from violating a negative covenant that directly harms the employer's business after separation. The ruling provides employers in customer-facing industries a vital tool to protect their goodwill and customer base, establishing that such covenants are not an unreasonable restraint on trade if they are limited in scope. Future cases would rely on this precedent to evaluate the reasonableness of post-employment restrictions, focusing on the protection of legitimate business interests rather than the nature of the employee's skills.
