New York businesses may want to review the choice-of-law provisions in their non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. In a recent decision, the New York Court of Appeals refused to enforce the choice-of-law provision in an employment agreement purporting to apply Florida law after finding that “applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state.”
The Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Brown & Brown of New York, Inc. (BBNY) recruited defendant Theresa A. Johnson to leave her former job to work for BBNY. On Johnson’s first day, she signed an employment agreement containing a Florida choice-of-law provision and a non-solicitation provision. The non-solicitation provision precluded Johnson, for two years following her termination of employment, from directly or indirectly soliciting, accepting or servicing any person or entity “that is a customer or account of the New York offices of [BBI and BBNY] during the term of this Agreement,” as well as certain prospective customers.
After working for BBNY for several years, Johnson was terminated. Less than one month later, she began working for defendant Lawley Benefits Group, LLC, a competitor of BBNY.
Shortly thereafter, BBNY filed suit to enjoin alleged violations of the agreement by Johnson and to recover damages against both Johnson and Lawley. The lower courts dismissed the claims related to the non-solicitation provision, finding that that the Florida choice-of-law provision was unenforceable.
The Court’s Decision
The New York Court of Appeals agreed that the Florida choice-of-law provision was unenforceable as against public policy. In reaching its decision, the state’s highest court acknowledged that parties are generally free to reach agreements on whatever contractual terms they prefer. However, it also emphasized that courts will not “enforce agreements…where the chosen law violates ‘some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.'” The court also noted that the public policy exception is reserved “for those foreign laws that are truly obnoxious.”
In this case, the court compared Florida and New York law concerning restrictive covenants in employment agreements. While it found similarities with respect to the extent that they both require restrictive covenants to be reasonably limited in time, scope and geographical area, and to be grounded in a legitimate business purpose, it also noted several key differences that made Florida’s law incompatible with the rationale behind New York’s restrictive covenant jurisprudence. As the opinion explains:
Considering Florida’s nearly-exclusive focus on the employer’s interests, prohibition against narrowly construing restrictive covenants, and refusal to consider the harm to the employee — in contrast with New York’s requirements that courts strictly construe restrictive covenants and balance the interests of the employer, employee and general public — defendants met their “‘heavy burden’ of proving that application of Florida law[to the non-solicitation provision of the parties’ agreement] would be offensive to a fundamental public policy of this State.”
Message for New York Businesses
In light of the court’s decision in Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015), New York employers should be sure to evaluate the applicable laws of any jurisdiction named in a choice-of-law provision. If the laws are vastly different, particularly with respect to the burdens placed on employers vs. employees, they may be deemed unenforceable.
Message for New Jersey Businesses
The New Jersey Supreme Court, since at least 1992, has similarly held that choice of law contractual provisions that violate New Jersey’s public policy will not be enforced.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Is Your Choice-of-Law Provision “Truly Obnoxious?”
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
How is your Choice-of-Law Provision?
New York businesses may want to review the choice-of-law provisions in their non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. In a recent decision, the New York Court of Appeals refused to enforce the choice-of-law provision in an employment agreement purporting to apply Florida law after finding that “applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state.”
The Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Brown & Brown of New York, Inc. (BBNY) recruited defendant Theresa A. Johnson to leave her former job to work for BBNY. On Johnson’s first day, she signed an employment agreement containing a Florida choice-of-law provision and a non-solicitation provision. The non-solicitation provision precluded Johnson, for two years following her termination of employment, from directly or indirectly soliciting, accepting or servicing any person or entity “that is a customer or account of the New York offices of [BBI and BBNY] during the term of this Agreement,” as well as certain prospective customers.
After working for BBNY for several years, Johnson was terminated. Less than one month later, she began working for defendant Lawley Benefits Group, LLC, a competitor of BBNY.
Shortly thereafter, BBNY filed suit to enjoin alleged violations of the agreement by Johnson and to recover damages against both Johnson and Lawley. The lower courts dismissed the claims related to the non-solicitation provision, finding that that the Florida choice-of-law provision was unenforceable.
The Court’s Decision
The New York Court of Appeals agreed that the Florida choice-of-law provision was unenforceable as against public policy. In reaching its decision, the state’s highest court acknowledged that parties are generally free to reach agreements on whatever contractual terms they prefer. However, it also emphasized that courts will not “enforce agreements…where the chosen law violates ‘some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.'” The court also noted that the public policy exception is reserved “for those foreign laws that are truly obnoxious.”
In this case, the court compared Florida and New York law concerning restrictive covenants in employment agreements. While it found similarities with respect to the extent that they both require restrictive covenants to be reasonably limited in time, scope and geographical area, and to be grounded in a legitimate business purpose, it also noted several key differences that made Florida’s law incompatible with the rationale behind New York’s restrictive covenant jurisprudence. As the opinion explains:
Considering Florida’s nearly-exclusive focus on the employer’s interests, prohibition against narrowly construing restrictive covenants, and refusal to consider the harm to the employee — in contrast with New York’s requirements that courts strictly construe restrictive covenants and balance the interests of the employer, employee and general public — defendants met their “‘heavy burden’ of proving that application of Florida law[to the non-solicitation provision of the parties’ agreement] would be offensive to a fundamental public policy of this State.”
Message for New York Businesses
In light of the court’s decision in Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015), New York employers should be sure to evaluate the applicable laws of any jurisdiction named in a choice-of-law provision. If the laws are vastly different, particularly with respect to the burdens placed on employers vs. employees, they may be deemed unenforceable.
Message for New Jersey Businesses
The New Jersey Supreme Court, since at least 1992, has similarly held that choice of law contractual provisions that violate New Jersey’s public policy will not be enforced.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
