For New Jersey employers, whether your employment non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are enforceable depends on how well your covenants hold up under judicial scrutiny.

For New Jersey employers, restrictive covenants are not mere boilerplate; they are litigation instruments that require careful, strategic drafting and thoughtful deployment. The state relies on the Solari/Whitmyer framework to determine enforceability. An employee non-compete or non-solicitation covenant is enforceable only if it meets three requirements:

  • It protects a legitimate employer interest;
  • It imposes no undue hardship on the employee; and
  • It does not injure the public interest.

Courts will enforce narrowly tailored restraints but not rescue provisions designed purely to suppress ordinary competition.

Key Considerations

1. Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest?Trade secrets and confidential information remain core protectable interests. Customer relationships can justify a restraint, especially where the employee developed those relationships through the employer’s investment of time, effort, training, and goodwill. The Appellate Division has credited evidence that high-performing sales employees received specialized training, access to proprietary tools, and exposure to customer and prospect information, making the employer’s customer relationships protectable. The caution from Whitmyer continues to be important, however: General industry knowledge, ordinary skills, and public bidding information are not enough.

2. Is the restraint no broader than necessary?
Duration, geography, and scope of activity still matter. A one-year restriction is often defensible, but the analysis is fact-sensitive and tied to the employer’s actual need. A court could blue-pencil overbroad non-solicitation language that barred solicitation of all actual and prospective clients, limiting it to clients or prospects the employee knew or worked with during employment. Although geographic limits are useful, remote and hybrid work make old territory-based language less reliable because the covenant must track the employee’s real competitive footprint, not just an office location.

3. Does enforcement harm the public interest?
Courts look for a real public component, not abstract complaints about competition. Restrictions in commercial contexts are more likely to be enforceable where customers have alternatives and the restraint is limited. Avoid restraints affecting patient choice, access to professional services, employee mobility in essential markets, or clauses that operate as blanket bans untethered to confidential information or customer goodwill.

Audit Your Existing Covenants

  • What specific trade secret, confidential information, customer relationship, or specialized training investment does the covenant protect?
  • Does the clause cover only customers or prospects the employee knew, serviced, or learned about through employment?
  • Is the duration, geography, and activity restriction tailored to the employee’s role and real competitive reach?
  • Would a narrower non-solicitation, confidentiality agreement or trade-secret protection accomplish the same business objective with less litigation risk?

The Bottom Line

New Jersey employers that rely on overly broad or boilerplate language may find their covenants unenforceable, or modified, when it matters most. A proactive audit of existing agreements can identify vulnerabilities before they become litigation problems.

If you have questions about the enforceability of your restrictive covenants or need assistance reviewing or drafting your employment agreements, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.