Pgh. Logistics, Aplt. v. Beemac Trucking, 249 A.3d 918

PLS (third-party logistics provider) and Beemac (carrier) entered a recurring Motor Carriage Services Contract containing: (1) a one-year non‑solicit clause (Section 14.3) and (2) a two‑year post‑termination no‑hire / "no‑poach" clause (Section 14.6) barring Beemac from hiring PLS employees.
While the contract was in force, Beemac hired four PLS employees; PLS then sued Beemac for breach (and sought injunctive relief to bar Beemac from employing those ex‑employees).
The trial court enjoined Beemac initially but later vacated the injunction as to the no‑hire provision, upholding the customer non‑solicit clause but concluding the no‑hire clause was void as against public policy.
The Superior Court (en banc) affirmed, finding the no‑hire clause improperly restricts non‑party employees and can’t be used to circumvent lack of employer–employee consideration.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: it applied the ancillary/restraint reasonableness test and held the company‑to‑company no‑hire clause overbroad and an unreasonable restraint of trade, likely injuring employees and the public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of a no‑hire provision in a services contract between sophisticated businesses	PLS: Arm's‑length parties negotiated the clause to protect PLS’s employee "know‑how"; such clauses are presumptively enforceable when reasonable.	Beemac: Such clauses unreasonably restrict non‑party employees, lack consideration to those employees, and violate public policy.	Held: No‑hire clause unenforceable — an ancillary restraint unreasonable and overbroad.
Whether the no‑hire clause is ancillary/necessary to protect a legitimate interest	PLS: Clause is ancillary to the services relationship and protects legitimate business assets (trained employees, confidential info).	Beemac: Protection of employees’ mobility and public interest outweighs PLS’s asserted need; narrower protections (employee non‑competes) exist.	Held: Although ancillary, the clause is greater than needed to protect PLS and not justified given harm to employees/public.
Appropriateness of preliminary injunctive relief to enforce the clause	PLS: Entitled to injunction to prevent irreparable harm from employee poaching.	Beemac: Plaintiffs cannot show likelihood of success on the merits because clause is unenforceable.	Held: Trial court had reasonable grounds to deny preliminary relief because PLS failed to show substantial likelihood of success.

Jacobson & Co. v. Int’l Env’t Corp., 236 A.2d 612 (Pa. 1967) (ancillary‑restraint rule for covenants in restraint of trade)
Morgan’s Home Equip. Corp. v. Martucci, 136 A.2d 838 (Pa. 1957) (reasonableness test for covenants ancillary to employment or sale)
Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Sys. of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266 (Pa. 2015) (restrictive covenants disfavored; requirements for enforceability)
Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (standard of appellate review for preliminary injunctions)
Heyde Cos., Inc. v. Dove Healthcare LLC, 654 N.W.2d 830 (Wis. 2002) (no‑hire provision treated as indirect covenant restraining employees; unenforceable)
H & M Commercial Driver Leasing, Inc. v. Fox Valley Containers, Inc., 805 N.E.2d 1177 (Ill. 2004) (no‑hire clause upheld as reasonable protection of employer’s business asset)
Therapy Servs., Inc. v. Crystal City Nursing Ctr., Inc., 389 S.E.2d 710 (Va. 1990) (no‑hire clause between businesses upheld where not injurious to public and reasonably limited)
VL Systems, Inc. v. Unisen, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (broad no‑hire clause invalid where it restricts many non‑party employees without consent)
Texas Shop Towel, Inc. v. Haire, 246 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952) (third‑party contracts cannot trade away employees’ employment rights without their consent)