2015] EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF NONCOMPETES 13
“garden leave” clauses.
45
This Section focuses on noncompete clauses,
which are the broadest restrictive covenants. Employers craft CNCs to
stop departing employees from competing with them in any manner.
Thus, where permissible under a state’s law and within the bounds of
public policy,
46
many employers will insist that their employees accept
noncompete clauses in their employment contracts.
47
In effect, the
CNC allows the firm to control information and skills through the
equity mechanism of an injunction prohibiting the employee from
going to work with another employer.
48
Courts interpret these clauses with some suspicion because of
their anticompetitive nature
49
and likely adverse effects on the
44. See, e.g., Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Visentin, No. 11 Civ. 399 (LAP), 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 15342, at *7–24 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2011), aff’d, 437 Fed. App’x 53 (2d Cir. 2011) (denying
former employer IBM’s request to enforce an executive’s noncompete after he was hired by
competitor Hewlett-Packard).
45. The concept of garden leave is an alternative to a traditional CNC. The employee
agrees to provide a relatively long notice-of-termination period, during which the individual
remains an employee with all of the attendant fiduciary duties, is essentially paid not to come to
work, and, accordingly, is prohibited from taking other employment with a competitor. See Bob
Hepple, The Duty of Employee Loyalty in English Law, 20 COMP. LAB. L. & POL’Y J. 205, 214
(1999):
[The employer] “pay[s] the employee’s salary during this period without requiring the
employee to come into work . . . on the assumption that the employee will have to stay
home and work in the garden, but will be financially secure until the period of notice
expires and he or she is then free to work for the competitor.
For a discussion of recent coverage of the garden leave concept in the academic literature, see
Bishara & Westermann-Behaylo, supra note 41, at 25–27. See also Greg T. Lembrich, Note,
Garden Leave: A Possible Solution to the Uncertain Enforceability of Restrictive Employment
Covenants, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 2291, 2292 (2002) (“Garden leave may provide a solution to the
prevailing uncertainty regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the United
States . . . however, American courts have not ruled on the legitimacy of garden leave
provisions.”).
46. See, e.g., Geoffrey P. Miller, Bargains Bicoastal: New Light on Contract Theory, 31
CARDOZO L. REV. 1475, 1499 (2010) (comparing New York and California’s treatments of
contracts against public policy, noting that both “place limits on covenants not to compete and
related clauses, but California is significantly more willing to reject agreements on this ground”).
47. See, e.g., Gillian Lester & Elizabeth Ryan, Choice of Law and Employee Restrictive
Covenants: An American Perspective, 31 COMP. LAB. L. & POL'Y J. 389, 389 (2009) (discussing a
rise in noncompete litigation in the face of greater employee mobility and increased use of
technology in the workplace, and concluding that greater movement of workers “is partly the
result of technological change facilitating individual movement and communication, but also a
result of corresponding changes in corporate organization to establish offices and interests in
multiple jurisdictions” and that “[w]ith these developments, there has been a rise in litigation
surrounding the enforcement of employee covenants not to compete when the parties or issues
involved have connections to multiple jurisdictions”).
48. For a discussion of the use of noncompetes to inhibit employee mobility, see Bishara &
Westermann-Behaylo, supra note 41, at 2–3.
49. See, e.g., CORBIN ON CONTRACTS, § 80.15 (2013) (“Many courts are more suspect of
restraints accompanying employment contracts than they are of restraints accompanying the