Roquemore Skierski PLLC helps employees, key stakeholders, and business owners review, defend, and enforce non-compete agreements.
Roquemore Skierski PLLC helps employees, key stakeholders, and business owners review, defend, and enforce non-compete agreements.
Unmatched Local Knowledge | 100+ Years of Combined Experience | 24/7 Availability
A non-compete is a contract clause that limits where a person can work, or who a person can work for or with, after a business relationship ends. The most common setting is an employment relationship, although similar restrictions also appear in equity arrangements and separation agreements. In McKinney, non-compete disputes can move quickly because the party seeking enforcement may pursue early injunctive relief, meaning a court order that temporarily restrains certain conduct while the lawsuit proceeds.
Roquemore Skierski PLLC handles non-compete matters for business owners, executives, and key employees. These cases usually require an early, business-minded evaluation of enforceability, the immediate risk to revenue and customer relationships, and the steps that can reduce the likelihood of emergency court proceedings.
Texas generally permits non-compete agreements, but only when the restriction fits within the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act. In general terms, a non-compete is enforceable only if it is tied to an otherwise enforceable agreement and the limits are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of activity. Courts also ask what legitimate business interest the restriction protects, which often includes goodwill, client relationships, or confidential information.
If a restriction reaches further than necessary, Texas courts may reform the covenant by narrowing it rather than refusing enforcement altogether. That feature shapes strategy in McKinney disputes because a party evaluating settlement, injunctive relief, or exit planning must assume the court may rewrite the restraint into a form the court views as reasonable.
When a business decides to enforce a non-compete, the earliest phase often drives the practical outcome. Temporary relief typically starts with a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is a short-term order that can be sought on an accelerated schedule, and may then proceed to a temporary injunction, which can extend restraints after notice and a hearing. Early hearings tend to focus on whether the business can prove a protectable interest and show specific conduct that violates the restriction.
Enforcing a non-compete agreement often relies on:
The signed agreement and any related confidentiality, non-solicitation, equity, or separation documents that clarify duties and restrictions.
The protectable interest at issue, such as client relationships, goodwill, pricing information, operational methods, or other confidential processes.
The conduct that violates the restriction, tied to dates, communications, customer movement, and the sequence of events surrounding the departure.
The reasonableness of the restraint, with a clear explanation of why the time limits, geographic limits, and restricted activities track the business purpose.
When the record supports enforcement, remedies may include targeted court orders, damages where legally available and provable, and early discovery focused on preserving communications and securing key evidence before it changes.
When a demand letter or lawsuit arrives, the first task is usually exposure control. That assessment often turns on enforceability, the proof the employer can actually present, and whether temporary court orders could interfere with operations, planned hiring, customer coverage, or a negotiated transition.
Defense strategies commonly rely on:
The non-compete not being tied to an otherwise enforceable agreement, or the required consideration being missing.
The duration, geography, or restricted activity limits being broader than Texas law permits given the role and the business footprint.
The employer using a non-compete to punish competition rather than to protect a legitimate interest.
The claimed confidential information being public, outdated, widely known, or handled in a way that undermines confidentiality.
The requested injunction exceeding what the contract language supports or what the evidence can justify.
Because Texas courts may narrow an overbroad restriction, defense often includes seeking a limited order that addresses the specific protectable interest without imposing unnecessary restraints on lawful work.
When a business drafts non-competes, enforceability and clarity usually matter more than aggressive scope. Restrictions are more likely to hold up when they match how the company competes, define the protectable interest with precision, and align with confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions that reflect actual internal practices.
Drafting often involves:
Tailoring restriction length, geographic area, and restricted activities to the business footprint and the employee’s role.
Aligning non-compete terms with trade secret and confidentiality rules, including clear definitions and consistent treatment of sensitive information.
Planning for departures, including return of property, device access, account credentials, and controlled customer communications.
Evaluating dispute-resolution terms, including forum selection and or arbitration clauses when appropriate.
A review should focus on how the restriction applies to the role and the realistic next-step opportunities. Contract language can look standard while still creating practical limits that interfere with a promotion, a competitor move, or a new venture.
A non-compete review from Roquemore Skierski PLLC typically covers:
Trigger events such as resignation, termination, a role change, or separation terms that modify restrictions.
Restricted activities and how the agreement defines “competition” relative to actual job duties.
Geographic limits and whether they align with where the company operates and where the role touches customers.
Non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions that may function as the primary constraint even when the non-compete language appears narrow.
Many disputes turn on interpretation rather than existence. Interpretation focuses on defined terms, the scope of “competition,” customer and territory definitions, and any carveouts or exceptions. It also requires evaluating how the non-compete interacts with other documents, including equity grants, partner or shareholder agreements, separation agreements, and internal policies, because those documents often change the practical reach of the restriction.
Call Roquemore Skierski PLLC at 972-325-6591 to discuss a non-compete dispute or restrictive covenant risk. Our firm can respond to demand letters on an expedited basis, assess whether a non-compete is enforceable under Texas law, and take steps that reduce the likelihood of emergency court filings.
While our business litigation attorneys are based in Downtown Dallas, we proudly serve clients in and around Addison, Carrollton, Cedar Hill, Coppell, DeSoto, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Forney, Garland, Grand Prairie, Grapevine, Highland Park, Irving, Oak Cliff, Richardson, Rockwall, Rowlett, Royse City, University Park, and the surrounding area. Whether your company is facing a contract dispute, partnership conflict, or other commercial challenge, we deliver strategic counsel and strong representation across the DFW Metroplex.
