Epstein Becker: Texas and Oklahoma Restrictive Covenant Laws Clash in Fifth Circuit | Practical Law

Epstein Becker: Texas and Oklahoma Restrictive Covenant Laws Clash in Fifth Circuit | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. discusses a recent decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank. In this decision, the court, noting that Texas generally allows covenants not to compete with certain limits whereas Oklahoma does not, addressed the impact of choice of law provisions in non-competes and the impact of public policy on their enforceability. The court held that an Oklahoma court could refuse to enforce a Texas choice of law provision supporting application of a non-compete to employees in Oklahoma. The court also remanded for determination of whether a non-solicitation would be enforceable under Texas law because Oklahoma public policy would not void a choice of law provision requiring limitations on solicitation.

Epstein Becker: Texas and Oklahoma Restrictive Covenant Laws Clash in Fifth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update 8-620-0032 (Approx. 4 pages)

Epstein Becker: Texas and Oklahoma Restrictive Covenant Laws Clash in Fifth Circuit

by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Published on 03 Nov 2015Oklahoma, Texas, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. discusses a recent decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank. In this decision, the court, noting that Texas generally allows covenants not to compete with certain limits whereas Oklahoma does not, addressed the impact of choice of law provisions in non-competes and the impact of public policy on their enforceability. The court held that an Oklahoma court could refuse to enforce a Texas choice of law provision supporting application of a non-compete to employees in Oklahoma. The court also remanded for determination of whether a non-solicitation would be enforceable under Texas law because Oklahoma public policy would not void a choice of law provision requiring limitations on solicitation.