997 N.E.2d 1
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Buffkin was an independent contractor sales recruiter for Glacier Group from Aug. 2008 until Glacier terminated the contract June 2, 2011. He signed an Independent Contractor Agreement containing a three-year, nationwide non‑compete and confidentiality clause.
- Paragraph 6 barred Buffkin from any role "connected in any way" with any business competing with Glacier in employee recruitment or placement throughout the continental United States for three years post‑termination.
- Glacier sought a preliminary injunction after learning Buffkin engaged in IT recruiting post‑termination; the trial court granted a nationwide injunction restraining Buffkin from recruiting in Glacier’s stated IT areas.
- At the preliminary injunction hearing, Glacier’s president testified Buffkin had little prior recruiting experience and received training and access to client‑related information; Buffkin testified he did not have client contact, received only job descriptions/comp ranges, and denied possessing trade secrets or client lists.
- The trial court found Glacier had a protectable interest (goodwill, client names/requirements) and that Glacier showed a reasonable likelihood of success; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the covenant overbroad and the protectable interest minimal.
Issues
| Issue | Glacier's Argument | Buffkin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preliminary injunction enforcing the non‑compete was proper | Glacier: clause protects goodwill, proprietary info, training, and client lists; injunction necessary to prevent unfair competition | Buffkin: covenant is overbroad in time, activity, and geography; he lacked client contact and proprietary info; covenant unenforceable | Reversed: Glacier failed to show likelihood of success; covenant unreasonable and unenforceable as written |
| Whether Glacier demonstrated a legitimate protectable interest | Glacier: training, insider industry knowledge, and client relationships warranted protection | Buffkin: only general recruiting skills and publicly available info were exchanged; no client contacts or trade secrets | Held: Glacier’s interest was minimal; record lacked evidence of proprietary info or misuse of client relationships |
| Whether geographic scope (continental U.S.) was reasonable | Glacier: it recruits nationwide and has clients across U.S.; broad scope reflects business reality | Buffkin: scope effectively bars him from the field; Glacier offered no market‑specific evidence | Held: geographic scope unreasonable given minimal protectable interest; exceeds bounds of reasonableness |
| Whether activity restriction ("connected in any way") is reasonable | Glacier: restriction targets competing recruiting/placement activities in Glacier’s industry | Buffkin: language is unreasonably broad, bars unrelated employment including work for potential customers | Held: activity restriction unreasonable and overly broad; prevents use of general skills and lawful employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Ind. Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008) (noncompetition agreements must be reasonable)
- Dicen v. New Sesco, Inc., 839 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 2005) (overbroad geographic restraints unenforceable)
- Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp., 127 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 1955) (employer cannot unduly restrict employee’s use of general skills)
- Brunner v. Hand Indus., Inc., 603 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (distinguishing protectable confidential information from general knowledge)
- Vukovich v. Coleman, 789 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (covenant that could apply worldwide is invalid)
- Gleeson v. Preferred Sourcing, LLC, 883 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for preliminary injunctions)