A recent non-solicit case out of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas addressed the trial court’s denial of an injunction.
The Defendants were both employed by Jon Scott Salon as hairstylists. They signed Employment Agreements that contained several covenants addressing confidential information and the non-solicitation of clients after termination.
After resigning from Jon Scott, the Defendants opened a new salon ten miles down the road and there was evidence that they were soliciting Jon Scott customers.
Jon Scott filed a lawsuit and obtained a temporary restraining order. The trial court denied the request for the injunction because the “non-solicitation clause in [appellant’s] employment agreement with [Defendants] was unenforceable as a matter of law because [the] employment agreement with [Defendants] were ‘at will.’ Jon Scott took the issue up on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court was in error when it ruled that Jon Scott was not entitled to an injunction solely because the employment agreements at issue were “at will.”
The basis for the trial court’s ruling is unclear. Texas courts have found non-solicitation agreements enforceable in the context of “at will” employment for many years. Unfortunately it doesn’t help Jon Scott Salon because they are still going to have to put on evidence and attempt to secure a temporary injunction from the trial court. The take away for the Defendants is not to specify in the Order denying the injunction why it is being denied.