URL-provided case (name will be extracted)
460 N.J. Super. 368 (App. Div. 2019) (2019)
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant agreement, including non-solicitation and non-compete clauses, is enforceable in New Jersey if it protects an employer's legitimate business interests without imposing undue hardship on the employee or harming the public, and courts may 'blue-pencil' overly broad provisions to ensure their reasonableness.
Facts:
- ADP, LLC, a human capital management firm, provides a range of business outsourcing and software services, including human resources, payroll, and benefits administration.
- Upon initial hiring, ADP required all new employees to sign an agreement (Sales Representative Agreement or Non-Disclosure Agreement) containing narrowly tailored non-compete and non-solicitation provisions.
- ADP offered annual stock award incentives to its top-performing sales employees who met or exceeded sales targets, conditioned on their acceptance and execution of a secondary, more restrictive, 'click-wrap' Restrictive Covenant Agreement (RCA).
- Erik Kusins, Ryan Hopper, Anthony Karamitas, Nick LeNoble, Michael DeMarco, and Daniel Hobaica were all top-performing sales representatives at ADP who accepted multiple stock awards and executed these RCAs, including the broader 2014 RCA.
- The 2014 RCA included non-solicitation clauses prohibiting employees from soliciting any actual or prospective ADP client, regardless of prior contact or geographical location, for twelve months after termination, and non-compete clauses restricting employment with a competing business anywhere in the territory where similar services were provided.
- At various times, each defendant resigned from ADP and accepted employment with Ultimate Software Group (USG), a direct competitor, often selling similar products and services in overlapping territories or to client types they had experience with at ADP.
- Following their resignations, ADP alleged that the defendants solicited ADP's actual clients, prospective clients, or employees, and used specialized knowledge gained at ADP in their new roles, leading to the legal dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- ADP, LLC filed multiple complaints in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, against Erik Kusins and the other five defendants, seeking to enforce the Restrictive Covenant Agreements (RCAs).
- In the cases of Kusins, DeMarco, and Hobaica, the trial judge granted summary judgment, finding the RCAs 'anti-competitive and unenforceable,' while also finding breaches of initial SRAs/NDAs but denying monetary relief or injunctive relief under the RCAs.
- In the cases of Hopper, Karamitas, and LeNoble, a different trial judge granted summary judgment in part, finding the RCAs enforceable 'click-wrap' agreements but their non-solicitation provisions overly broad, requiring 'blue-penciling' to limit their scope.
- The second judge then largely found no breaches under the modified RCA terms or only 'minimal violations' for Hopper, Karamitas, and LeNoble, denying significant remedies or counsel fees to ADP.
- ADP, LLC appealed the trial court rulings in all six consolidated cases to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
- Erik Kusins filed a cross-appeal challenging the equitable tolling remedy applied under his initial Sales Representative Agreement.
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 agreement, specifically its non-solicitation and non-compete provisions, entered into by high-performing sales employees in exchange for stock awards, protect a legitimate business interest of the employer and, if so, are its terms enforceable as written or do they require modification to prevent undue hardship on the employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Currier, J.A.D.
Yes, a restrictive covenant agreement protecting an employer's legitimate business interests, such as customer relationships and specialized confidential information, is enforceable, but its overly broad non-solicitation and non-compete provisions require modification ('blue-penciling') to reasonably guard the employer's interests without imposing an undue hardship on former employees. The court applied the three-pronged Solari/Whitmyer test, evaluating (1) whether the covenant protects legitimate interests of the employer, (2) whether it imposes undue hardship on the employee, and (3) whether it is injurious to the public. The court found that ADP demonstrated a legitimate and protectable interest in its customer relationships and the highly specialized information its top-performing employees acquired through extensive training, development programs, and access to client databases. This interest was significant given these employees' ability to cause harm upon joining a competitor, justifying the RCAs as an incentive for top talent. However, the court determined that the 2014 RCA's non-solicitation clause, prohibiting contact with any of ADP's 620,000 existing or prospective clients worldwide, was unreasonably broad and imposed an undue hardship, as employees could not possibly know all such clients. The court found no evidence the RCAs harmed the public interest. Consistent with its power to modify overly broad provisions, the court 'blue-penciled' the RCAs: the non-solicitation clause for actual clients was limited to those the former employee was actively involved with or had knowledge of during their ADP employment; the non-solicitation clause for prospective clients was limited to those about whom the employee gained knowledge while at ADP and directly or indirectly solicited after leaving. The non-compete geographical restriction to the employee's former ADP territory was deemed reasonable, but the trial courts' additional 'market segment' restriction (e.g., based on client employee count) was reversed as unsupported by evidence. The court reversed the trial court orders finding RCAs unenforceable or imposing excessive restrictions, and remanded for a determination of appropriate remedies, including tolling periods for breaches and counsel fees.
Analysis:
This case significantly reaffirms the enforceability of restrictive covenant agreements in New Jersey, particularly for high-performing employees who receive additional consideration like stock awards. It provides crucial guidance on the application of the Solari/Whitmyer test for balancing employer interests against employee hardship and solidifies the court's power to 'blue-pencil' overly broad provisions rather than striking them down entirely. Future cases will likely use this decision to craft enforceable RCAs that protect specific customer relationships and confidential information without imposing unreasonable burdens, impacting how employers incentivize top talent and protect their business assets.
