Source: https://www.crowelltradesecretstrends.com/2019/04/restrictive-covenants-in-the-seventh-circuit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:01:38+00:00

Document:
States within the Seventh Circuit employ the reasonability standard used in many other circuits to determine whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable. Two of these states, Illinois and Indiana, apply a common law framework but largely disfavor such covenants as a restraint on trade. Wisconsin’s restrictive covenant statute focuses on the reasonableness of the agreement as well, but will void the entire agreement if even a portion of the agreement is “illegal, void and unenforceable” – even if the remaining portions of the agreement are otherwise enforceable.
See Lawrence & Allen v. Cambridge Human Resource Group, 292 Ill. App. 3d 131 (1997).
A restrictive covenant will be enforced only if the terms of the agreement are reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
A restrictive covenant’s reasonableness is measured by its hardship to the employee; its effect upon the general public; and the reasonableness of the time, territory, and activity restrictions.
whether the restrictive covenant is supported by adequate consideration.
See Grand Union Tea Co. v. Walker, 208 Ind. 245 (1935); Zimmer, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31294, (N.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2018); Pathfinder Communications Corp. v. Macy, 795 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); MacGill v. Reid, 850 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
In Indiana, to be enforceable, the employer must prove that a restrictive covenant is reasonable with respect to the legitimate interests of the employer, restrictions on the employee, and the public interest.
The agreement must be reasonable in scope as to the time, activity, and geographic area restricted, such that it restricts an employee only so far as necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 103.465; see also Star Direct Inc. v. Dal Pra, 319 Wis. 2d 274 (2009).
Pre- and post-termination non-compete agreements are lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer.
is not contrary to public policy.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 v.