non-competition clause in Pennsylvania

2025Id. at 48. - 17 - J-A03027-25 A non-competition clause of an employment contract is only enforceable if it is “(1) ancillary to an employment relationship between an employee and an employer; (2) supported by adequate consideration; (3) the restrictions [included] are reasonably limited in duration and geographic extent; and (4) the restrictions are designed to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.” Socko, 126 A.3d at 1274 .

2019In Insulation Corp. of America v. Brobston, 446 Pa. Super. 520 , 534 667 A3d 729, 735 (1995), the court noted that "it bears noting that there is a significant factual distinction between the 8 2018-00065-0065 Opinion, Page 9 hardship imposed by the enforcement of a restrictive covenant on an employee who voluntarily leaves his employer and that imposed upon an employee who is terminated for failing to do his job." When a non-competition clause is signed after an employee has commenced her employment, the covenant is enforceable only if the employee receives "new and valuable consideration-tha

2020Petty v. Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania, 967 A.2d 439 , 443 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2019In Insulation Corp. of America v. Brobston, 446 Pa. Super. 520 , 534 667 A3d 729, 735 (1995), the court noted that "it bears noting that there is a significant factual distinction between the 8 2018-00065-0065 Opinion, Page 9 hardship imposed by the enforcement of a restrictive covenant on an employee who voluntarily leaves his employer and that imposed upon an employee who is terminated for failing to do his job." When a non-competition clause is signed after an employee has commenced her employment, the covenant is enforceable only if the employee receives "new and valuable consideration-tha

2019In Insulation Corp. of America v. Brobston, 446 Pa. Super. 520 , 534 667 A3d 729, 735 (1995), the court noted that "it bears noting that there is a significant factual distinction between the 8 2018-00065-0065 Opinion, Page 9 hardship imposed by the enforcement of a restrictive covenant on an employee who voluntarily leaves his employer and that imposed upon an employee who is terminated for failing to do his job." When a non-competition clause is signed after an employee has commenced her employment, the covenant is enforceable only if the employee receives "new and valuable consideration-tha

2018Further, it agreed with the trial ____________________________________________ 4 Although the decisions of the federal district courts are not binding on this Court, we may “utilize the analysis in those cases to the extent we find them persuasive.” Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151 , 159 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted). -7- J-A18040-17 court assessment that section 14.6 “was largely superfluous in light of the non-competition clause.”5 Id. at 8-9.

2014Our Superior Court has held to the contrary, stating ‘where a restrictive covenant is executed after the commencement of employment, it will not be enforced unless the employee restricting himself receives a corresponding benefit or change in status.’ Ruffing v. 84 Lumber Co. [ 410 Pa.Super. 459 ], 600 A.2d 545 (Pa.Super.1991).

2014Our Superior Court has held to the contrary, stating ‘where a restrictive covenant is executed after the commencement of employment, it will not be enforced unless the employee restricting himself receives a corresponding benefit or change in status.’ Ruffing v. 84 Lumber Co. [ 410 Pa.Super. 459 ], 600 A.2d 545 (Pa.Super.1991).

2013Defendant has breached the non-competition clause of his employment agreement by engaging in employment with Summit Salt Company, however, defendant argues that plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that it will suffer any harm, much less irreparable harm, from his continued employment at Summit Salt Company, Inc. In Pennsylvania, the grounds for an injunction are established “where the plaintiff’s proof of injury, although small in monetary terms, foreshadows the disruption of established business relations which would result in incalculable damage should the competition continue in violation of

1995Id.

1995Id.

1992These provisions, we hold, satisfy the first, second and fourth criteria of a legally acceptable liquidated damages provision as set forth in Stover v. Spielman, supra, as these provisions convey the intent of compensation of Geisinger for unquantifiable business losses due the premature departure of Dr. Di Cuccio from its employ for the purpose of establishing a medical practice in competition with Geisinger within the prohibited temporal and geographic bounds of the non-competition clause.

1992These provisions, we hold, satisfy the first, second and fourth criteria of a legally acceptable liquidated damages provision as set forth in Stover v. Spielman, supra, as these provisions convey the intent of compensation of Geisinger for unquantifiable business losses due the premature departure of Dr. Di Cuccio from its employ for the purpose of establishing a medical practice in competition with Geisinger within the prohibited temporal and geographic bounds of the non-competition clause.

1991See Henschke v. Moore, 257 Pa. 196 , 101 A. 308 (1917); Keeler v. Taylor, 53 Pa. 467 , 91 Am.Dec. 221 (1866).

1991See Henschke v. Moore, 257 Pa. 196 , 101 A. 308 (1917); Keeler v. Taylor, 53 Pa. 467 , 91 Am.Dec. 221 (1866).

1991Kline v. Morrison, supra. Although, in Garner v. Girard Trust Bank, 442 Pa. 166 , 275 A.2d 359 (1971), our Supreme Court upheld a non-competition clause which allowed for a pension forfeiture, the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

1991Kline v. Morrison, supra. Although, in Garner v. Girard Trust Bank, 442 Pa. 166 , 275 A.2d 359 (1971), our Supreme Court upheld a non-competition clause which allowed for a pension forfeiture, the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

1991Rochester, Jr., 450 F.2d 118 (4th Cir.1971) and Garner v. Girard Trust Bank, 442 Pa. 166 , 275 A.2d 359 (1971), which appellants attempt to distinguish from the present case, and upon which the trial court relied to support its decision, do support the validity and enforceability of the non-competition clause in the pension plan.

1991Rochester, Jr., 450 F.2d 118 (4th Cir.1971) and Garner v. Girard Trust Bank, 442 Pa. 166 , 275 A.2d 359 (1971), which appellants attempt to distinguish from the present case, and upon which the trial court relied to support its decision, do support the validity and enforceability of the non-competition clause in the pension plan.

1991Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffner, supra, 465 Pa. 507 , 351 A.2d at 210 . *184 In order to apply these requirements to the facts instantly, we must first examine whether the non-competition clause relates to a contract for employment.

1980It therefore must be concluded that absent a contrary agreement between the parties a tenant’s obligations are not independent of a landlord’s promise under a non-competition clause. 490 Pa. at 64-65 , 415 A.2d at 33-34 (footnotes omitted).