Consideration for Restrictive Covenant

Before suing to enforce a restrictive covenant, i.e., a non-competition/non-solicitation agreement, a plaintiff must anticipate the frequently asserted defense that the covenant lacks adequate “consideration,” and is therefore an unenforceable contract.

Contracts require consideration to be enforceable. Consideration is sufficient when one person or business offers another person or business something of value in exchange for something else of value from the other, and the other person or business then accepts that offer. Value that suffices as consideration can be cash, services, good, property, or a promise to do or not do something.

The form of value that best describes consideration in restrictive covenants is that an employer offers to employ and pay a person for their service, and the employee promises not to compete or solicit the employer’s employees or customers for a stated time period in a stated geographic region. That is the essence of consideration for a restrictive covenant.

The issue that arises in restrictive covenant litigation is the adequacy of the consideration. The defendant (the party against whom the plaintiff seeks enforcement of the covenant) will frequently argue that he or she did not receive enough, sufficient or any consideration to be adequate to support enforcement of the covenant.

Generally, under Illinois law, continued employment suffices as consideration to enforce restrictive covenants in employment agreements. The only qualification to this general rule is the employment continues for a “substantial period of time” to be sufficient consideration.

The rationale for the “substantial period” qualification is to prevent an employer from getting an employee to enter a restrictive covenant while intending to fire him the minute he signed. In other words, to make sure that the person would not then work for a competitor.

As with most subjective legal standards, there is no fixed numerical formula to determine what constitutes a “substantial period” in all cases. But Illinois courts have said the law should no require a rigid numerical formula. Factors other than the time period of the continued employment must be considered, such as whether the employee or the employer terminated employment.

Generally, Illinois courts have held that continued employment for a minimum of two years or more constitutes an adequate consideration. But this maxim cannot be applied in a vacuum with disregard for other factors, especially if the employee against whom the covenant is sought to be enforced acted inequitably or in bad faith. The two-year period cannot be used like a sword. A classic example is an employee who voluntarily resigns exactly two days before the two-year anniversary of signing the employment agreement; yet, in the days and weeks before his resignation he was secretly planning and setting up a competitive business while also reassuring his employer, he intended to remain an employee, knowing if he remained employed for another two days, the restrictive covenants would definitely become enforceable.

Each case will be decided on its facts. Our discussions of Illinois cases that address adequacy of consideration in restrictive covenants are here.

The attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle have over thirty years of experience defending and prosecuting non-compete, trade secret and restrictive covenant lawsuits. We are committed to fighting for our clients' rights in the courtroom and at the negotiating table. Conveniently located in Chicago and Elmhurst, Illinois, we have successfully litigated non-compete and trade secret and covenant not to compete cases for clients all over the Chicago area. To schedule a consultation with one of our skilled attorneys, you can contact us online or give us a call at 630-333-0333.

Client Reviews
I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service. Sebastian R.
I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle. Kurt A.
Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers! Albey L.
I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins. Christopher G.
Peter was really nice and helpful when I came to him with an initial question about a non-compete. Would definitely reach out again, recommended to everyone. Johannes B.