Are you looking for legal representation? How much do you value your time and hard-earned money? Then look no further because whenever you require legal representation, the Law Offices of Vincent Miletti, Esq., the Strongest Name in Law, got your six. We are the authoritative force in Employment & Labor Law, providing diverse legal services in both a traditional and online, web-based environment, whether it be for small or large-scale businesses on a panel or a case-by-case basis. Hitherto, serving as primary counsel or cumis counsel, we are not only taking over the industry when it comes to Employment Defense and Employment Practices, but also in Intellectual Property Defense (Trademark, Copyright, and Proprietary Information), Management Side Defense, Regulatory and Compliance, Business Law & Corporate Law, and Professional Liability, among others. Whether serving directly or on behalf of a third party (EPLI, D&O, E&O), we stay unusually motivated® to take on all your needs!

You can agree with us that, at times, getting the right legal representation and finding a good attorney feels like trying to catch a fish while running away from a twenty-foot-high tide, especially when time and money are of the essence and the pressure of getting results before you move too far down the rabbit hole is building up. Certainly, only when you desperately need reliable legal representation, probably not from the types of Saul Goodman, will you understand the importance of having the right attorney by your side. So, do you need an attorney with the skills and legal expertise that match your needs? Operating in Brooklyn, New York, the larger New York City, and New York State, as well as in the firm’s new office located in Astoria Queens, your life-changing encounter with Vinny Miletti Esq., the founder and owner of Miletti Law®, whose legal expertise, knowledge, and experience has grown immensely over time since the firm first opened its doors is just an email and/or a call.

Still, in addition to providing legal services, you can concur with us that information is power, and, as such, we have diligently committed ourselves to creating a range of authoritative, trustworthy, and engaging content available on our website and social media platforms. In this regard, feel free to visit and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Yelp, and LinkedIn via the website, as well as subscribe to our Blog, YouTube Channel, and News Letter through https://milettilaw.com/blog and https://www.youtube.com/@MilettiLaw, and https://milettilaw.com/#7665b240-0790-4562-ac0f-9444f9f5165a, respectively, to enjoy such content aimed to keep our unusually motivated® readers informed about how diverse legal issues affect them and/or their businesses.

In this regard, this blog is Part XXVI of our series, “Key Employment Law Issues for Businesses & Companies in New York.” In Part XXV, we hammered on the provision of “forfeiture-for-competition” – another key concept of consideration for employers and employees during the process of hiring and boarding. Regarding this provision, we mentioned that through the provision of forfeiture-for-competition, employees are given a choice – retain employment benefits by staying with the employer or forfeit a prospective benefit by competing with the employer. Another critical thing we mentioned is that as long as the employer can show that the employee was discharged with an identifiable cause or that the employer was willing to employ the employee who agreed not to compete, the provision is enforced by courts irrespective of its reasonableness.

In our next blog titled “Considerations when Drafting & Enforcing Non-solicitation Clauses,” we have moved the discussion forward by reviewing key considerations for employers when drafting & enforcing non-solicitation clauses.

Considerations for Employers when Drafting & Enforcing Non-solicitation Clauses

We have, in our series called “Key Legal and Drafting Issues for Non-solicitation Covenants/Agreements,” dealt with the issue of non-solicitation, which is a crucial pillar of restrictive covenants. In this 5-part series, we hammered on five key considerations for every employer when drafting client/customer non-solicitation agreements. These considerations, as discussed under individual blogs, included (1) defining clients that will be specifically covered by the non-solicitation agreement and determining the scope of prohibited customer solicitation, (2) including reasonable geographic and time limits, (3) defining confidential information, (4) defining the protectable interest with regards to the employer’s confidential information and client/customer goodwill, and (5) determining if a geographic restriction can be eliminated.

In agreement with the information we provided under the series, a key concern of employment is that by recruiting from the former employer’s ranks and/or soliciting the former employer’s clients/customers, former employees may drain their former employer’s staff or customer/client base. To prevent this from happening, the law permits employers to draft and enforce employee non-solicitation agreements and clauses and client/customer non-solicitation agreements and clauses. Like non-competes,

In the blog accessible through https://milettilaw.com/non-solicitation-agreements-key-legal-drafting-issues-part-iv/, we hammered on why employers should avoid ambiguous and/or overreaching non-solicitation agreements and mentioned that usually, an employee non-solicitation agreement might be rendered unenforceable by a court when terms such as “encourage” and “influence” are used as a way of expanding the reach beyond employee solicitation since such usage is considered too broad. This goes without saying that just like when drafting non-competes discussed in Part XXIII of this series, employers should avoid ambiguity or overreaching when drafting and structuring non-solicitation agreements.

Another thing is that a reasonable period on the non-solicit restriction related to a fundamental business justification should be included in a non-solicitation agreement/clause. In our blog accessible through https://milettilaw.com/non-solicitation-agreements-key-legal-drafting-issue-part-iii/, we asserted that the limit on the time of an employee non-solicitation agreement should depend on a valid business justification, including the time needed to recruit additional qualified individuals or the training time required for new employees. Employers often fall into the temptation of making the time limit for non-solicitation clauses and non-compete clauses the same. However, since a former employee is not prevented from earning a living by non-solicits, it can be argued that the time limit for non-solicits could be longer than that of non-competes.

Additionally, employers should also, when structuring employee non-solicitation clauses, factor in whether the former employee would be prohibited from not only contacting the former employer’s employees but also from hiring them altogether. From a legal perspective, a non-solicit prohibiting a former employee from contacting the former employer’s employees is narrower but has a higher likelihood of being enforced by a court.

Last but not least, employers may consider including clients and/or investors as part of a broad definition of customers. Ideally, any customer who was a customer, either throughout or even at a single point in time, within several months after separation of employment with the former employee.

In Part XXVII of this series, we will, in our blog titled “Including Non-disparagement Provisions in Restrictive Covenants,” hammer on the importance of including non-disparagement provisions and clauses when drafting and structuring restrictive covenants at the point of hiring and onboarding employees.

As usual, stay tuned for more legal guidance, training, and education. In the interim, if there are any questions or comments, please let us know at the Contact Us page!

Always Rising Above the Bar,

Isaac T.,

Legal Writer, Author, and Publisher.