Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

Skip to Content

In Alabama, Non-Competes Must be Executed On or After an Employee’s Start Date

Applying Alabama law, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion that found Alabama’s statute  prohibiting restraints on trade prohibits the enforcement of a non-compete agreement executed just prior to an employee’s start date. The statute, Alabama Code Section 8-1-1, contains an exception that makes non-compete agreements in Alabama enforceable within the employer/employee context.  But the court, affirming the district court’s denial of the employer’s motion for a temporary restraining order, found the exception inapplicable to a situation where the employer/employee relationship had not yet begun. In this case, the employee signed the non-compete covenant only four days before his employment began.

This opinion should encourage Alabama employers to ensure that their new employees execute their non-compete covenants on or after their start dates. Employers in  other states where  restraints on trade are generally prohibited with limited exceptions should also take note.*Alabama, and the Eleventh Circuit, have signaled that these exceptions may be quite narrowly construed.

*Colorado, for instance, has a statute similar to Alabama’s. Florida’s statute, on the other hand, is framed differently; it finds restraints of trade generally permissible, with some exceptions.

Dawson v. Ameritox, Ltd., 571 Fed. Appx. 875 (11th Cir. 2014)

©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.