Does Connecting on Linkedin violate non-compete/non-solicitation agreements?
Does connecting on Linkedin violate non-compete agreements? A district court has opened up the question of how far is too far when friending/linking/connecting with contacts through social media.
- sfhiserodt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
My non-compete agreement,
My non-compete agreement, like most, has a specific scope of prohibited activities. Usually this means doing business with or working for customers or competitors of your former employer. This prohibition is only for services or products that compete with your former employer's business, and lasts for a specific period of time, usually a year.
They can't prohibit mere association with individuals in organizations, which is what linkedin enables. I think the line you seek is providing an economic benefit that might have competitive effect on your former employer.
In the lawsuit in question,
In the lawsuit in question, the defendant clearly made a solicitation through a LinkedIn connection via a message. The connection itself is just a vehicle through which the offer was extended. I seriously doubt any possible outcome of the suit could result in merely connecting to someone being construed as an offer. The only real dispute here is if the wording of the message genuinely qualifies as an offer.
It seems pretty obvious from
It seems pretty obvious from the inserted text in your blog post from Brelyn Hammernick to "Tom" that Brelyn was soliciting "Tom." I'm not a lawyer, but in this instance, it seems pretty clear. What's not clear is whether Brelyn understood that sending a "link invite" with those words violated the NDA. Either way...Ooops!
I appreciate your comments
I appreciate your comments and am truly sorry for the late response. In reviewing your responses I noticed that the title of the post does state the concern with just connecting, but the reason for this is to make people aware of where this limitation exists. The court in question arguably seemed to push the limits of solicitation and the relation to social media gave me rise to question how far a court would go in finding solicitation in basic communications.
You all seem to have a solid grasp on this concept. Mark, I agree with your assessment of a common non-compete clause or contract. The provision must be ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and must be reasonable as to scope (geographical, time, and performance). Although mere association currently doesn't seem to fall within this area as you and rmh3 state, however, if a message is attached to that connection, as NY2TX suggests, a potential solicitation arises. Therefore, comments or posts in certain situations could bring potential infringement.
Texas courts do not favor non-compete clauses, so the claimant must have solid evidence of such and infringement and prove damages to get an award, although an injunction is a possible without damages (which is the favored course of action of larger companies). However, I believe the line drawn for breach is not actually providing these resources, but actively suggesting to a restricted person (where the restriction is defined in the contract) that you can provide these services. However, the facts for such a solicitation must be found, which as you all mention are more than just a mere connection. However, one must be sensitive to these what facts are needed to solicit and to tread lightly in how you are contacting or connecting on these social networks.