The Wyoming Supreme Court recently made an important change to the way restrictive covenant agreements are evaluated by courts in that state. For many years, courts in Wyoming – as in many other states – have followed the so-called “blue pencil” rule when presented with a non-competition or non-solicitation agreement whose restrictions appear to be unreasonable.
Roughly speaking, when asked to enforce an overbroad restrictive covenant in an agreement, a court can (a) refuse and invalidate the whole agreement, (b) cross-out just the offending terms and enforce the rest of the agreement, or (c) modify or revise the offending terms such that they impose a more reasonable restriction. Technically, the “blue pencil” rule refers to option (b) – i.e., just striking out the unenforceable terms – but option (c) also is commonly referred to as “blue penciling” the agreement. Wyoming courts used to be willing to modify overbroad restrictions and partially enforce them in modified form.
In a February 25, 2022 decision in Hassler v. Circle C Resources, however, the Wyoming Supreme Court overruled such precedent, noting that public policy and “established black letter rules of contract interpretation” required that courts reject employers’ requests to revise non-compete provisions that would otherwise be unreasonable and unenforceable. In that case, the employer sought to enforce against its former employee a 24 month non-compete “in any geographic area in which [the] employer markets...
Ryan Amacher, who played role in bid to damage campaign, has also made antisemitic and racist posts on social media An influencer who played a key role in hoax claims that James Talarico was in a ...