Pennsylvania Superior Court Requires Additional Consideration For Non-Compete From Current Employee

Pennsylvania Superior Court Requires Additional Consideration For Non-Compete From Current Employee

 by Jami K. Suver 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc.that non-compete agreements signed during employment are not enforceable unless the employer provides its employee additional consideration in exchange for signing [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers]. David Socko was employed by Mid-Atlantic as a salesman for its basement waterproofing services business.  During his employment, Socko signed an employment contract containing a covenant not to compete with Mid-Atlantic in certain specified locations for two years after termination. The contract contained a statement, in compliance with Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act (UWOA), that the parties intended to be legally bound.  The court in Socko noted that Pennsylvania courts have generally concluded that a written agreement is not void for lack of consideration if it contains such an express statement.

Socko did not receive a benefit or beneficial change in his employment status in exchange for signing the non-compete.  He resigned and, shortly thereafter, accepted a position with another Pennsylvania waterproofing business.  Mid-Atlantic notified the new employer of Socko’s non-compete and threatened litigation. Ten days later, Socko’s new employer terminated his employment.

Socko sued Mid-Atlantic in the Court of Common Pleas in York County, Pennsylvania.   The trial court granted Socko’s motion for partial summary judgment, and Mid-Atlantic appealed, contending that the lower court erred when it failed to apply the UWOA.

In Socko, the court noted that when a restrictive covenant is included in an initial contract of employment, the job itself is sufficient consideration for the employee’s commitment.   However, when the parties add a restrictive covenant to an existing employment relationship, the restriction is not enforceable unless the employee receives an additional benefit or change in job status.  The court concluded that a statement that the parties intended to be legally bound, as set forth in the UWOA, was insufficient consideration to support enforcement of a covenant not to compete against Socko because he did not receive any actual benefit.  Because Mid-Atlantic did not provide Socko with valuable consideration in exchange for signing the non-compete, the court affirmed the trial court’s order.

Copyright © 2014 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All rights reserved.

This Blog has been prepared by Steptoe & Johnson PLLC for informational purposes only and the content contained herein is not offered as legal advice. This is an advertisement and the information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt thereof does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon the information contained herein without seeking professional counsel. Do not send information to us until you speak with one of our lawyers and obtain authorization to do so. Unsolicited information that you send to us will not be treated as confidential and may be disclosed to others. Please contact Steptoe & Johnson PLLC at (304) 933-8000 if you have any questions.

 Read other articles at the Steptoe & Johnson Labor & Employment Blog 

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, please connect with us through our corporate site.