Duration and Geographic Scope

Geographic Scope

The geographic limitation in a non-competition agreement can often be more of an obstacle for a former employee than its duration limitation. Whether a geographic limitation is “reasonable” can determine whether a court will enforce the agreement.

What is reasonable is fact-specific. Courts generally ask if the geographic limitation (a) prohibits the former employee from making a living in his or her respective trade or profession, and (b) is necessary to protect the employer’s business (e.g., customer relationships), but does not attempt to protect the employer from any potential competition where it already does business.

What is reasonable usually includes the nature of an employer’s business, the location of its actual or potential customers or clients, the nature and location of employment of those to be bound by a non-competition agreement, and the state law where enforcement is sought. Courts may enforce broader geographic restrictions for a higher level than lower level employee, particularly when the employer proves the breadth is necessary to protect something like confidential information, yet other restrictions in the agreement are narrow (e.g., carve-outs or exclusions of specific restricted clients, specific competitors whom the employee is barred from working, or specific services or products with which the employee cannot subsequently be involved.)

A reasonable geographic scope is not always defined by miles, municipal, county or state borders. But courts are most likely to enforce specific, narrow geographic limitations, i.e., those that do identify specific states, counties or other distinct locales or regions that are restricted from competition, like a former employee’s specific prior territory.

Courts will probably not enforce a non-competition agreement lacking any defined geographic limitation, regardless whether by mistake (from poor drafting) or intentional. If intentional, what would amount to a global restriction on competition would likely be held unconscionable and therefore unenforceable - in any state.


Whether a duration term is reasonable is also fact-specific. A key factor is the particular profession or industry, or nature of the employee’s employment in the profession or industry. The same duration term in one profession, industry, or circumstance may be enforceable, but unenforceable in a different profession or industry.

The geographic limitation may also bear on whether a duration term is reasonable and thus enforceable. A duration term viewed alone that seems facially unreasonable could be reasonable if the geographic limitation is narrow.

Our discussion of Illinois decisions that address these issues 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.