A. substantial relationships with clients.
Gloria Ramirez will not be bound by the non-compete agreement that she signed with En Vogue because they will not be able to prove substantial relationships with clients; which the courts require in order to gauge whether the legitimate business requirements have been fulfilled.
In enforcing a non-compete agreement with an employer, legitimate business interests have to be proven. The term legitimate business interest includes, but is not limited to, substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients. Any restrictive covenant that is not supported by a legitimate business interest will be unlawful, voided, and unenforceable. To qualify as a legitimate …show more content…
Although section 542.335 of the West Florida statutes states that legitimate business includes substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients, it does not define what substantial relationships should entail. Fla. Stat. Ann. §542-335 (West 1996). In Univ. of Florida v. Sanal, the courts upheld the trial courts opinion that since the university could not provide evidence that clients from the hospital had followed Dr. Sanal to his new place of employment or that they had experienced a decrease in its hematology patients, the university failed to carry the burden of proof therefore Dr. Sanal’s summary judgment motion was upheld. Univ. of Florida v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). In Sanal, the defendant left his previous employer to work for another hospital; he worked in the hematology department just as he did at his previous place of employment; the university filed an injunction against him on the claim that he was taking their patients away by treating them at his new place of employment; but the university failed to provide evidence that the defendants move to to a new job site affected them by a decrease of patients. Id. The court held that the university’s failure to provide evidence that the defendant treated his former clients at his new place of employment amounted to a …show more content…
Ramirez had any substantial relationship with her previous clients. This is similar to Passalacqua, where the appellees had no evidence to offer the court with regards to the allegation that the appellants made use of their client database to start their own business. Ms. Ramirez will be able to offer evidence to support the fact the En Vogue purpose of attempting to enforce the non-compete agreement is for legitimate business interest, and will be able to have the case dismissed just like the appellants did in Passalacqua. Naviant, Inc., 844 So. 2d