Skip to main content

Nevada Supreme Court Holds It is Not the Role of the Judiciary to "Blue Pencil" a Noncompete Agreement to Make it Enforceable


Golden Road Motor Inn Inc. v. Islam - Nevada Supreme Court


Facts:  Casino host Sumona Islam ("Islam") entered into agreements with her employer Atlantis Casino Resort Spa ("Atlantis") to refrain from employment association or service with any other gaming establishment within 150 miles of Atlantis for one year following the end of her employment.  Another agreement restricted Islam from sharing confidential information, disseminating intellectual property, and downloading or uploading information without authorization.  During her time at Atlantis, Islam altered and concealed the contact information for 87 players in Atlantis' electronic database, hand copied players' names, contact information, and other proprietary information.  Islam ultimately left her position with Atlantis and went to work for another gaming establishment.  Although Islam was instructed not to bring anything from Atlantis, Islam used certain player information that she had copied from Atlantis' database.

Atlantis subsequently became aware that Islam was working for a competitor and informed Islam's new employer of the non-compete and the prohibition of using any information Islam may have brought with her.  Atlantis ultimately filed a complaint against Islam and her new employer.  At trial, the district court ultimately held that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable.  Atlantis appeald the ruling that the noncompete was not enforceable. 

Holding:  Atlantis argued that even if the noncompete agreement was held to be unenforceable as written, the agreement should be preserved by judicial modification (also known as "blue penciling").  Islam and her new employer countered with the argument that blue penciling the agreement was improper and the entire agreement should be voided.  

The Nevada Supreme Court noted that under Nevada law, an overly broad term that prohibits an employee from employment, affiliation, or service with a competitor, which extends beyond what is necessary to protect the former employer's interests, is unreasonable and renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable.  In this case, the Supreme Court held that a court's role is to interpret contracts, not write them.  Consequently, altering a contract, even minimally, would conflict with the impartiality that is required of a court.  Based upon the facts in this case, the Court pointed to the fact that since the noncompete was overly broad, the entire agreement was unenforceable as written (and the Court would not entertain the notion of blue penciling the agreement).

Judgment:  The Nevada Supreme Court held that the noncompete agreement was overly broad as written and therefore unenforceable.  Further, the Court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to "blue pencil" an agreement to eliminate the overly broad portions and make the agreement enforceable.

The Takeaway:  Noncompetes are always a favorite topic of mine.  This case was very interesting in so much that the Nevada Supreme Court adopted an "all or nothing" approach to the enforceability of noncompete agreements.  Perhaps that is not the only intriguing part of this ruling.  In fact, I think the fact that the Supreme Court declined to adopt the "blue pencil" rationale is quite significant.  While some court might agree that the judiciary can alter noncompetes as needed to make them enforceable, the Supreme Court in Nevada was quite clear in its position that the judiciary should not assume this role.  I think that part of the Court's ruling is perhaps the most significant takeaway from the opinion.  As always, employer's should be ever mindful of the fact that noncompetes are viewed differently in every state...and even in states where noncompetes are allowed, a court's ruling can drastically impact the validity of these agreements going forward. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Douglas

Date:  July 21, 2016

Opinion:  http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=32534

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more