Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 885 N.W.2d 798

Manitowoc and Lanning entered a 2008 agreement including a two-year nonsolicitation of employees (NSE) restraint.
Lanning left Manitowoc in January 2010 to join a direct competitor (SANY) of Manitowoc.
After leaving, Lanning allegedly contacted and recruited Manitowoc employees for SANY through various means.
Manitowoc sued for breach of the NSE, and the circuit court granted summary judgment for Manitowoc and awarded fees and costs.
The court held the NSE was enforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465, and Manitowoc was entitled to damages and fees.
On appeal, the supreme court held that § 103.465 governs the NSE and that the NSE is unenforceable under the statute, reversing the circuit court and remanding for entry of summary judgment in Lanning’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 103.465 governs the NSE provision	Manitowoc argues § 103.465 applies to NSE as a trade restraint	Lanning concedes framework but argues NSE may not be governed or enforceable under § 103.465	§ 103.465 applies to the NSE provision
Whether the NSE provision is enforceable under § 103.465	NSE is narrowly tailored to protect Manitowoc’s legitimate interests	NSE is overbroad and not justified by any protectable interest	NSE is unenforceable under § 103.465; the circuit court’s judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in Lanning’s favor

Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 319 Wis. 2d 274 (Wis. 2009) (reasonableness framework for covenants under § 103.465)
Behnke v. Hertz Corp., 235 N.W.2d 690 (Wis. 1974) (covenants in restraint of trade require close scrutiny)
Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 579 N.W.2d 217 (Wis. 1998) (§ 103.465 applies to trade restraints ensuring reasonableness)
Lakeside Oil Co. v. Slutsky, 98 N.W.2d 415 (Wis. 1959) (protectable interest required for enforceability)
Brass v. Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 625 N.W.2d 648 (Wis. 2001) (overbreadth invalidates restrictive covenants)