FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE
SIDELINES JULY 2012 17
Continued on page 42
e
EQUINE LAW
Florida Court holds for Former
Employee in Non-Compete Agreement
By Lisa Hollister, Esq.
Employers realize that if an employee leaves or is terminated
and then sets up shop in the same geographic area, the resulting
direct competition can potentially have devastating results for
the former employer. This can be especially true in the equine
industry. Assistant trainers are taught the business and introduced
to clients by the trainer with whom they are employed. In the feld
of veterinarian medicine, a young veterinarian is introduced to
clients as well as how to conduct business from their older more
experienced veterinarian employer. Non-compete contracts are
traditionally the way employers seek to protect their business from
former employees. But in one instance, the court on appeal found
that the non-compete contact was insuffcient and held for the
former employee.
Facts
In the Florida case of
Heiderich v. Florida Equine
Veterinary Services, Inc., No.
5D11-567 (2012) Heather
Heiderich Farmer, D.V.M. (“Dr.
Farmer”) during her employment
with Florida Equine Veterinary
Services, Inc. (“FEVS”) signed a
non-compete agreement which
included the following: “for a
period of two (2) years after
termination she was not to own,
manage, operate, control, be
employed by, assist, participate
in or have any material interest
in any business or profession
engaged in general equine
veterinary practice
located
within a thirty (30) mile radius
of … “ her employer’s business
address.
After Dr. Farmer’s employ-
ment was formally terminated
she opened her own veterinar-
ian offce located outside the
30 mile radius specifed in the
non-compete agreement which
she signed with FEVS. Sev-
eral of FEVS’s clients whose
stables were located within the
30 mile radius of FEVS’ offce
decided to switch to Dr. Farm-
er’s new practice. As a result,
FEVS fled a law suit against Dr.
Farmer claiming that Dr. Farmer
was in violation of the non-com-
pete agreement and sought to
enforce the agreement. Spe-
cifcally, the complaint asserted
that even though Dr. Farmer’s offce
was physically located beyond the
30 mile radius of FEVS’ s offce, she
was still prohibited from practicing
any veterinary medicine within the 30
miles of FEVS’s offce.
Lisa Hollister is an attorney
practicing in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Questions for Ms. Hollister’s
column can be addressed to
twinbridgefarm@aol.com