Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 274 of 1984
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a (2026)

Agreement or covenant protecting business interests of employer; applicability of section.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT


Act 274 of 1984


445.774a Agreement or covenant protecting business interests of employer; applicability of section.

Sec. 4a.

    (1) An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer's reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement as limited.

    (2) This section shall apply to covenants and agreements which are entered into after March 29, 1985.

History: Add. 1987, Act 243, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 8× “The Court of Appeals evaluated the reasonableness of the parties’ *506 noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement under the standard governing noncompete provisions between an employer and employee as articulated in St Clair Med, PC v Borgiel, 270 Mich App 260, 265 ; 715…”
Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc, 741 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “2d 670 (2002) (concluding that, in enacting MCL 445.774a, the Legislature intended to revive the common-law standards for the enforceability of noncompetition agreements); see also MCL 445.”
Rory v. Cont'l Ins., 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “See, for example, MCL 445.774a, which governs noncompetition covenants between an employer and an employee.”
Thermatool Corp. v. Borzym, 575 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “4 MCL 445.774a(1); MSA 28.70(4a)(1) took effect on December 28, 1987, and applies to covenants and agreements that were entered into after March 29, 1985.”
Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Servs., Inc, 706 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 445.774a and Thermatool Corp. v. Borzym, 227 Mich.”
Delphi Auto. PLC v. Absmeier, 167 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 3× “Laws § 445.774a. Although California has an interest in protecting its residents and workers from contracts contrary to state policy, forum precedent supports the argument that Michigan has a materially greater interest in protecting its businesses from breaches of agreements…”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “[MCL 445.774a(l) (emphasis added).] This Court recently addressed the issue whether a covenant not to compete violates the MARA in St Clair Medical, PC v Borgiel, 270 Mich App 260 ; 715 NW2d 914 (2006).”
St Clair Med., PC v. Borgiel, 715 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “But, agreements not to compete are authorized by § 4a(l) of the MARA, MCL 445.774a(l), which provides: An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer’s reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from…”
Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Thus, the facts of this case presented a situation where a noncompete restriction did not deprive defendant of her ability to earn a living and there was a legitimate concern that the value of plaintiffs property distribution would be destroyed without the restriction.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. Burns, 457 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 3× “3 Under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, to be enforceable, covenants not to compete must protect an employer’s “reasonable competitive business interests” and must be “reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Marzullo, 591 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “§ 445.774a. Accordingly, the Shipley court found that as of 1985, Michigan could no longer be said to have a strong public policy against no-compete agreements.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Ran, 67 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “§ 445.774a which provides that restrictive covenants not to compete are enforceable as long as they are reasonable in duration, geographic area and type of employment or line of business.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a(1) — 23 cases
Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc, 741 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 670 (2002) (concluding that, in enacting MCL 445.774a, the Legislature intended to revive the common-law standards for the enforceability of noncompetition agreements); see also MCL 445.”
Thermatool Corp. v. Borzym, 575 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “4 MCL 445.774a(1); MSA 28.70(4a)(1) took effect on December 28, 1987, and applies to covenants and agreements that were entered into after March 29, 1985.”
Superior Consulting Co., Inc. v. Walling, 851 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
Whirlpool Corp. v. Burns, 457 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2006). “3 Under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, to be enforceable, covenants not to compete must protect an employer’s “reasonable competitive business interests” and must be “reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business.”
Robert Half Int'l, Inc. v. Van Steenis, 784 F. Supp. 1263 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a(2) — 1 case
Bristol Window & Door, Inc. v. Hoogenstyn, 650 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a(l) — 10 cases
Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc, 741 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 670 (2002) (concluding that, in enacting MCL 445.774a, the Legislature intended to revive the common-law standards for the enforceability of noncompetition agreements); see also MCL 445.”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “[MCL 445.774a(l) (emphasis added).] This Court recently addressed the issue whether a covenant not to compete violates the MARA in St Clair Medical, PC v Borgiel, 270 Mich App 260 ; 715 NW2d 914 (2006).”
St Clair Med., PC v. Borgiel, 715 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “But, agreements not to compete are authorized by § 4a(l) of the MARA, MCL 445.774a(l), which provides: An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer’s reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from…”
Thermatool Corp. v. Borzym, 575 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “4 MCL 445.774a(1); MSA 28.70(4a)(1) took effect on December 28, 1987, and applies to covenants and agreements that were entered into after March 29, 1985.”
Loutts v. Loutts, 298 Mich. App. 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Thus, the facts of this case presented a situation where a noncompete restriction did not deprive defendant of her ability to earn a living and there was a legitimate concern that the value of plaintiffs property distribution would be destroyed without the restriction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.