non-compete Archives - ARTAEV AT LAW PLLC

Are Non-Compete Agreements Enforceable Against Independent Contractors in Michigan?

This is one of those gray legal areas where the answer is “it depends on the facts of the situation.” Previously, I wrote about the basics of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements that are becoming increasingly common in all industries. At their core, non-compete agreements restrain the free labor market, and are therefore analyzed under the Michigan Anti-Trust Reform Act (“MARA”) (MCL 445.774a), which sets out a four-factor “reasonableness” test for the agreement. To be enforceable, the non-compete must: (1) Protect a reasonable competitive business interest; (2) Be reasonable in terms of duration; (3) Be reasonable in terms of geographical area; and (4) Be reasonable in terms of the the type of employment or business affected. Although the four-factor test in MARA expressly refers to “employer” and “employee,” lawyers and businesses frequently cited the same test when evaluating non-competes in other relationships, such as between two sophisticated business entities or an independent contractor.

In a 2017 opinion, Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Manufacturing, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified that the MARA test only applies to employment relationships. A different test applies to commercial agreements between sophisticated business entities. The case involved the manufacturer of 5-Hour Energy, and the Court looked at the plain language used by the Legislature to determine that the test does not apply to agreements between businesses. The Court further explained that MARA does not set forth a test for commercial agreements, but instead instructs courts to look to federal anti-trust law for similar legal analysis. The applicable test is the so-called “rule of reason,” which can be summarized as whether, under all relevant facts, the covenant unreasonably restrains competition. While the test may seem similar to the MARA four-factor analysis, it is different because it focuses on the reasonableness of the effect on the free market, rather than the impact on the restrained party.

What about independent contractors? Can a hiring party insist on a non-compete as part of the independent contractor agreement? And if so, what are the parameters for a valid non-compete for an independent contractor? First, parties are generally free to contract for anything, and so an independent contractor may certainly agree to a non-compete clause as part of their contract. Second, the non-compete will be evaluated under the same “rule of reason” as an agreement between two sophisticated commercial entities. This is because an independent contractor is not an employee – thus MARA’s four-factor test does not apply. Where MARA does not apply, the Legislature instructs courts to look at federal anti-trust law. Thus, the outcome is the same as with commercial contracts under Innovation Ventures. That means the rule of reason applies and the court will look at the effect of the restraint on the relevant market.

In applying federal anti-trust law, there is also a concept called a “per se” anti-trust violation. A “per se” violation is conduct that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by its very nature and does not require proofs of the actual anti-competitive effect or the relevant market. Simply put, a “per se” anti-trust violation is one where there is no redeeming competition-facilitating effect. A classic example in the employment arena is the low-wage hourly worker non-compete. A restraint on an $11-per-hour janitor precluding him or her to work for a competitor serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever and is clearly abusive. A court will not enforce such a “per-se” violation. The independent contractor analysis would be similar – if there is no legitimate pro-competitive justification for the non-compete, it may not be enforceable.

One final word of warning. If you are a business considering or using non-compete clauses in your independent contractor agreements, some courts consider such clauses indicative of an employment relationship. If an individual or government agency (like the worker’s compensation agency) challenges your classification, a non-compete clause is evidence of control that weighs in favor of finding someone is an employee. And, if someone is misclassified as an independent contractor, there are a myriad of penalties, fines, and other problems that you may face.

Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses and contracts are becoming more and more standard. However, it is a mistake to blindly use them for all your employees or independent contractors. Each situation warrants its own analysis. Otherwise, your business risks not only losing non-compete litigation, but also risks other unintended adverse effects, such as a finding of an employment relationship where one was not intended.

More questions? Need a non-compete reviewed or drafted for your situation? Contact Dan Artaev by email or call or text to set up your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice. Every situation is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

Non-Compete vs. Non-Solicitation: Key Differences that Every Employer Must Know

No matter what industry you are in, you have probably encountered non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. In Michigan, standard pre-employment paperwork often contains obligations for the employee not to compete with the employer (non-compete) and not to solicit the employer’s existing customers or other employees (non-solicitation).

Although these obligations may be in the same boilerplate paragraph of the documents your employees signed before or on that first day of work, non-competes and non-solicitation covenants are very distinct in terms of their enforcement by the courts. As an employer, you should understand the different goals of these two types of covenants, the differences in the applicable law, and also understand that Michigan courts will not automatically enforce an agreement just because an employee signed it.

For the uninitiated, a non-compete agreement obligates the employee to not “compete” with the employer’s line of business for a set period of time after leaving employment. The non-compete not only prevents direct competition (for example, an employee starting his or her own rival company), but also prohibits an employee from working for a competitor located within a certain area. By way of example, an employee working as a sales rep for a medical supply store might agree not to work for any competing medical supply store located within 100 miles of their current employer for a period of 1 year after leaving. In essence, the non-compete seeks to preserve the employer’s competitive advantage by restricting its employees’ ability to go work for a rival or to start their own competitive enterprise.

Because the non-compete restricts the free labor market, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act of 1984 (MCL 445.774a) requires non-competes to:

Protect a reasonable competitive business interest;
Be reasonable in terms of duration;
Be reasonable in terms of geographical area; and
Be reasonable in terms of the the type of employment or business affected.

What is reasonable is a question of fact that depends on the scope of the restrictions and on the nature of the work to be restricted. For example, an agreement prohibiting a medical supply sales rep from competing for a year within 100 miles of his current territory is likely reasonable. However, the same agreement prohibiting the sales rep from working in the any medical-related field for 50 years anywhere in the world is probably not reasonable.

Also, the non-compete must protect a “reasonable competitive business interest” – meaning that agreements targeting back-room employees like maintenance or unskilled workers may be vulnerable to challenge because restricting those employees furthers no legitimate business interest. Before drafting and requiring a non-compete, an employer should ask themselves exactly what they are trying to protect. If the answer is something concrete like “customers” or “sales contacts” – then the agreement likely meets the reasonable competitive business interest criteria. If they struggle to come up with an answer or the answer is “I don’t want the employee working somewhere else” – then the agreement may not be considered reasonable and may not be enforced.

A non-solicitation agreement on the other hand is a promise not to interfere with the employer’s actual business by stealing their customers and employees. The non-solicitation is easier to enforce than a non-compete for several reasons. First, a non-solicitation agreement is NOT subject to MCL 445.774a because it does not “expressly prohibit[] an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment.” Thus, the statutory “reasonableness” requirements set forth above do not apply. Second, the non-solicitation by its nature is directly tied to legitimate competitive interests. There is little question that a business’s customers and employees are valuable assets. To prohibit an existing employee from interfering with those assets is not much different than prohibiting stealing on the job. Third, a non-solicitation agreement will not apply to a lower-level employee because they are not as likely to have no reason to or opportunity to steal customers or employees. After all, a maintenance tech working at a manufacturing plant is not likely to quit his or her job to start a rival manufacturing plant and steal customers and employees. But a C-suite executive may very well become a direct competitor.

As an employer, it is always a good plan to update your on-boarding documents and employee handbook to ensure that you know exactly what your employees are agreeing to. It is grave mistake to simply print some forms from the internet and cobble together a policy that does not make sense in the context of your business. After all, it pays to have a solid, enforceable document. If there are problems, it is better to find out that the document is problematic before it is held unenforceable by the courts.

Have more questions? Contact Dan Artaev at dan@artaevatlaw.com or 269-930-0254 to set up your free initial consultation.