Epstein Becker: Wisconsin Court Determines Non-compete Clause Does Not Render Arbitration Clause in Employment Agreement Unenforceable | Practical Law

Epstein Becker: Wisconsin Court Determines Non-compete Clause Does Not Render Arbitration Clause in Employment Agreement Unenforceable | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. discusses a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in Engedal v. Menard, Inc., upholding an arbitration provision in an employment agreement that included a non-compete clause. After Menard, Inc. (Menards) terminated Jeffrey Engedal, he sued, requesting a declaratory judgment that the provision was unenforceable. The circuit court held the arbitration provision was unconscionable because the non-compete clause would put Engedal out of a job for two years if he refused to sign it. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court's decision conflicted with its own findings that Menards would have offered Engedal a different position in the company if he refused to sign the agreement, his managerial, supervisory and organization skills were transferable outside the industry, and Engedal was subsequently able to find a job as a general manager for a company in another industry. 

Epstein Becker: Wisconsin Court Determines Non-compete Clause Does Not Render Arbitration Clause in Employment Agreement Unenforceable

by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Published on 14 Dec 2012United States, Wisconsin
This Law Firm Publication by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. discusses a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in Engedal v. Menard, Inc., upholding an arbitration provision in an employment agreement that included a non-compete clause. After Menard, Inc. (Menards) terminated Jeffrey Engedal, he sued, requesting a declaratory judgment that the provision was unenforceable. The circuit court held the arbitration provision was unconscionable because the non-compete clause would put Engedal out of a job for two years if he refused to sign it. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court's decision conflicted with its own findings that Menards would have offered Engedal a different position in the company if he refused to sign the agreement, his managerial, supervisory and organization skills were transferable outside the industry, and Engedal was subsequently able to find a job as a general manager for a company in another industry.