non-solicitation clause in Virginia

2026See Motion Control Sys., 262 Va. at 37 ; cf. Modern Env’ts v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 494-96 (2002) (holding that a non-compete clause was overbroad and unenforceable because it prohibited the employee from being employed in any capacity by a competitor, rather than limiting the restriction to activities that directly competed with the former employer’s business).2 2 Appellant suggests that appellees tried to “rehabilitate [Nagulavancha’s] breach by stating he never violated the non-solicitation clause.” But the non-solicitation clause appellant references was an entirely separate provision: it

2003Just last year, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that a non-solicitation clause must be narrowly tailored, as “covenants in restraint of trade are not favored” and are to be “strictly construed.” Modern Environments, Inc. v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 493 , 561 S.E.2d 694 (2002).

2008See Omniplex (applying the test to a covenant not to compete); see also Foti v. Cook, 220 Va. 800, 805 , 263 S.E.2d 430 (1980) (applying the same test as articulated in Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris, 224 F.2d 693, 698 (4th Cir. 1955) to a non-solicitation clause).

2008See Omniplex (applying the test to a covenant not to compete); see also Foti v. Cook, 220 Va. 800, 805 , 263 S.E.2d 430 (1980) (applying the same test as articulated in Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris, 224 F.2d 693, 698 (4th Cir. 1955) to a non-solicitation clause).

2026See Motion Control Sys., 262 Va. at 37 ; cf. Modern Env’ts v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 494-96 (2002) (holding that a non-compete clause was overbroad and unenforceable because it prohibited the employee from being employed in any capacity by a competitor, rather than limiting the restriction to activities that directly competed with the former employer’s business).2 2 Appellant suggests that appellees tried to “rehabilitate [Nagulavancha’s] breach by stating he never violated the non-solicitation clause.” But the non-solicitation clause appellant references was an entirely separate provision: it

2024Some repetition in GKG’s ten assignments of error permits summarizing them down to seven. 2 “On appeal, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial.” Manors LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors, 76 Va. App. 737 , 742 n.1 (2023) (quoting Sugarland Run Homeowners Ass’n v. Halfmann, 260 Va. 366, 371 (2000)). 3 Specifically, GKG and COMTek agreed that “neither party will actively solicit, employ or otherwise engage any of the other party’s employees (including former employees) who were involved in the Project.” The subcontract further provided that, “[i]n the event eithe

2024Because “it is a contract in restraint of trade[, it] will be held void as against public policy if it is unreasonable as between the parties or is injurious to the public.” Id.

2024There are policy concerns that a court must consider when reviewing a non-solicitation clause, namely in circumstances where as “part of the agreement, one party agrees to forego the ability to hire certain people who are not parties to the contract.” Therapy Servs. v. Crystal City Nursing Ctr., 239 Va. 385, 388 (1990).

2008See Omniplex (applying the test to a covenant not to compete); see also Foti v. Cook, 220 Va. 800, 805 , 263 S.E.2d 430 (1980) (applying the same test as articulated in Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris, 224 F.2d 693, 698 (4th Cir. 1955) to a non-solicitation clause).

2005Va. Cir. at 280.) A separate provision, the savings clause, stated that, if the non-solicitation clause was declared overbroad by a court of competent jurisdiction, “it will be construed as limiting and reducing it as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and shall be enforceable to the extent, compatible with applicable law.” Id. at 281 .

2005(The text of the non-solicitation clause may be found in Halpern , 19.

2003See Anteon Corp. v. BTG, Inc., 62 Va. Cir. 41 , 2003 Va. Cir. LEXIS 85 , (Fairfax 2003) (“a non-solicitation clause must be narrowly tailored, as “covenants in restraint of trade are not favored” and are to be “strictly construed.”).

2003See Anteon Corp. v. BTG, Inc., 62 Va. Cir. 41 , 2003 Va. Cir. LEXIS 85 , (Fairfax 2003) (“a non-solicitation clause must be narrowly tailored, as “covenants in restraint of trade are not favored” and are to be “strictly construed.”).