Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Strauman
353 N.E.2d 590, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 40 N.Y.2d 303 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant in an employment contract is unenforceable against a former employee if the employee's services were not unique or extraordinary and the employer's client list is readily ascertainable through public sources rather than a protectable trade secret.
Facts:
- In November 1962, John Strauman was hired by Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc., a company providing unemployment tax advice to employers.
- Upon being hired, Strauman signed an agreement containing a restrictive covenant that permanently barred him from soliciting Reed, Roberts' clients and prevented him from competing in a similar business for three years post-employment within the New York metropolitan area.
- Over 11 years, Strauman was promoted to senior vice-president of operations, where he was instrumental in developing internal systems and forms but was not responsible for sales or acquiring new clients.
- Reed, Roberts' potential customers were any company with employees, and their names and contact information were readily available through public business directories like Dun and Bradstreet.
- After leaving Reed, Roberts, Strauman formed a directly competing company, Curator Associates, Inc., in the same municipality.
- The business forms Strauman helped develop for Reed, Roberts were not significantly different from those used by competitors in the same industry.
Procedural Posture:
- Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc. sued John Strauman and Curator Associates, Inc. in a New York trial court to enforce the restrictive covenant.
- The trial court partially granted relief, permanently enjoining Strauman from soliciting Reed, Roberts' clients but refusing to stop him from operating a competing business.
- Both parties appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order without a written opinion.
- The case was then appealed by both parties to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement, which prohibits a former employee from competing with the employer and soliciting its clients, enforceable when the employee's services are not unique and the employer's client list is readily ascertainable from public sources?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
No. A restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is unenforceable when it does not protect a legitimate employer interest. The law applies a stricter standard of reasonableness to employee covenants than to those in the sale of a business due to the public policy against restricting a person's livelihood. Such covenants are enforceable only to the extent necessary to protect an employer's legitimate interests, which are limited to preventing the disclosure of trade secrets, the use of confidential customer information, or competition from an employee whose services are truly unique or extraordinary. In this case, there were no trade secrets, as the company's business methods were standard for the industry. The customer list was not confidential because potential clients were easily identifiable through public sources, and the employer admitted to using such sources for solicitation. Finally, while Strauman was a valuable and skilled employee, his services were not considered unique or extraordinary. Therefore, enforcing the covenant would improperly inhibit his ability to use his general skills and knowledge and would make key employees 'virtual hostages of their employers'.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces New York's strong public policy favoring employee mobility and competition. It clarifies that an employee's high value, seniority, or intimate knowledge of a firm's internal operations does not, by itself, render their services 'unique or extraordinary' for the purposes of enforcing a non-compete agreement. The ruling sets a high bar for employers, requiring them to demonstrate the existence of legitimate trade secrets or truly confidential customer data not available through public means. This precedent significantly limits the enforceability of broad restrictive covenants against former employees who do not possess trade secrets or unique talents.
Unlock the full brief for Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Strauman