Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as a general matter, restrict an employee from working for a competitor of, or soliciting the employees or customers of, their former employer for a period of time after their employment ends.

The proponents of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements argue that they help keep markets and industries fair by restricting companies from stealing each other’s employees solely to obtain the confidential information of their competitors. They also argue that these clauses are especially important to small and medium-sized businesses, who are susceptible to poaching by larger competitors, or in industries that derive a substantial portion of their revenue from their trade secret and other proprietary information (e.g., software companies).

Opponents of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses contend that such restrictions impede an employee’s ability to earn a livelihood and to pursue higher-paying employment. Although these clauses typically bar employment with a competitor, employees who have spent years developing specialized skills within a particular field or industry are most qualified to continue working in that same field. As a practical matter, this often means that their most realistic employment options are with competitors. Therefore, the existence of a non-competition clause can severely limit an employee’s job opportunities and economic mobility.

While Missouri Courts will uphold non-competition agreements that protect legitimate business interests, they will not uphold those that impose unreasonable restrictions.  Non-competition and non-solicitation agreements are among the most contentious and hotly contested cases between an employer and employee.