Ryan Golden
3 min read
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter.
-
A judge of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed on Monday compensation vendor Payscale’s attempt to enforce a noncompete agreement against its former director of sales because the agreement was overbroad.
-
Per the court, the defendant in Payscale v. Norman and BetterComp, Inc. signed an agreement prohibiting her from engaging in any competitive business for or on behalf of any person or entity other than Payscale or its parent company for an 18-month period following separation. The defendant left PayScale in December 2023 and joined competitor BetterComp 10 months later, and PayScale sued to enforce the agreement.
-
The court held the agreement was unenforceable because it was overbroad in both geographic and temporal scope, prohibiting nationwide work in “almost any role for any company engaged in business that [Payscale’s parent company] or its subsidiaries were conducting, or had even proposed conduct, as of [the plaintiff’s] departure.” It also held that the agreement was broader than necessary to protect Payscale’s business interests.
The decision is a reminder to employers that noncompetes, while often employed to prevent key talent from going to competitors, have been scrutinized both by courts and legislators across the U.S., especially when they are found to have overbroad stipulations.
The Federal Trade Commission in 2024 attempted to ban noncompetes nationwide over concerns that the agreements hindered competition by preventing affected workers from freely changing jobs. While federal courts ultimately blocked the ban, a number of state and local governments maintain limits on noncompetes within their own jurisdictions, according to the Economic Innovation Group.
In Payscale’s case, the court determined that the company provided “only minimal consideration” to secure the noncompete and that, when this is the case, the Court of Chancery “has found a nationwide scope overbroad,” the judge said.
Though the defendant received some nontransferable incentives in exchange for entering the agreement, the court found that the value of those incentives could not reasonably have been able to support an eighteen-month, nationwide prohibition on work.
Additionally, the judge held that the scope of the agreement was broader than necessary to protect Payscale’s business interests. Notably, the agreement prohibited the defendant from working in the same line of business as Payscale and its parent company’s other subsidiaries even though the defendant “is not alleged to have any special knowledge of [the parent company’s] business that it conceivably could have an interest in protecting.”
