Section 20 Remedies

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

Parties seeking enforcement of a restrictive employment covenant typically seek monetary damages and injunctive relief to stop the breaching conduct. Actual harm is not necessary to obtain injunctive relief. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Tucker, 768 S.W.2d 595, 601 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). The Supreme Court of Missouri has held that actual solicitation is not necessary to enforce a restrictive covenant; the mere threat of solicitation is enough. Id.; see also Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan,693 S.W.2d 71, 75 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing covenant when mere “opportunity” for influencing customers was present).

While the remedies for a violation of a restrictive employment covenant may be damages, an injunction, or both, the vast majority of litigation involving restrictive employment covenants principally involves actions for injunctive relief. There are two significant reasons. First, actual damages caused by the violation of a restrictive employment covenant are usually difficult, and sometimes impossible, to prove. Second, the employer typically prefers to enforce the employee’s compliance with the agreement rather than to recover monetary...