A recent lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas illustrated the importance of choice-of-law provisions in employee non-compete agreements.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were employees of F&M Bank, based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As part of a merger between F&M Bank and Texas-based Prosperity Bank, Prosperity offered the employees new employment agreements that included non-compete agreements. <\/p>\n
After the April 2014 merger, some employees were dissatisfied with their new positions and filed suit in Oklahoma state court, seeking a declaration that the non-compete agreements were not enforceable. Prosperity filed an action in Texas state court, seeking a declaration that the non-compete agreements were enforceable. The cases were removed to federal court and consolidated in the Southern District of Texas.<\/p>\n
After the employees resigned their positions with Prosperity and began working at CrossFirst Bank in Tulsa, dueling choice-of-law motions were filed by the parties. Although the case was in federal (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A recent lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas illustrated the importance of choice-of-law provisions in employee non-compete agreements. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were employees of F&M Bank, based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As part…<\/span><\/p>\n