Opinion ID: 1765791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonableness of restrictions

Text: The parties agree that the nonsolicitation covenant involved in this case represents only a partial restraint on trade and they, therefore, correctly observe that it does not implicate Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-1. See Hoppe v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 470 So.2d 1161 (Ala.1985); Famex Inc. v. Century Ins. Services, Inc., 425 So.2d 1053 (Ala.1982). Corson contends, nevertheless, that the nonsolicitation provision was unreasonably restrictive, both as to territory and as to persons restricted. Regarding territorial restrictions, the 1989 contract prohibited solicitation of Universal's customers in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi. It is undisputed that Universal did no business in Kentucky, North Carolina, or South Carolina during the term of its affiliation with Corson. Consequently, Corson insists, the territorial restrictions are glaringly unreasonable. Corson's contention would be far more compelling if the contract had contained a covenant not to compete, rather than the less onerous restriction on customer solicitation. We fail to understand how a covenant prohibiting only the solicitation of the employer's customers amounted to any restriction at all on the employee's right to practice his trade in those states in which the employer had no customers. Universal's customer list, moreover, while including some prominent businesses, is relatively small in relation to the total number of Alabama establishments using automatic doors. Consequently, we are unable to conclude that the contract's territorial restrictions rendered the covenant unenforceable. Corson also contends that Universal had no protectable interest in his employment. We disagree. An employer has a legitimate interest in restraining the employee from appropriating valuable ... customer relationships to which he has had access in the course of his employment. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 comment b (1981), quoted in Sheffield v. Stoudenmire, 553 So.2d 125 (Ala.1989), Calhoun v. Brendle, Inc., 502 So.2d 689 (Ala.1986), and James S. Kemper & Co. Southeast, Inc. v. Cox & Assoc., Inc., 434 So.2d 1380 (Ala.1983). In this case, there was evidence that Corson's responsibility for the development of lasting customer relationships constituted a material component of his job description. There was also evidence that Universal expended a measure of resources in training Corson for that purpose. Jerry Bess, president of Universal, testified: Mr. Corson was at Besam [Automatic Doors] prior to me hiring him. He worked in the back of the plant and he didn't normally deal with the general public. He dealt with distributors in the automatic door business.... I had to teach him how to talk to store managers and so forth, that when you go to a service call, you go into the store, you ask for a time card, you ask to see the manager, you look the manager in the eye, you give him a good handshake, a firm handshake, be courteous to the manager and you talk to that manager in such a manner that he knows that you are a professional and that you're competent in what you're doing .... When he would complete the service call, he would fill out a service invoice and go back and see the manager again and talk with this manager again. The basis of this second talk was to make this manager feel confident that the doors were repaired properly and that when he thought of doors breaking down or thought of automatic doors he would think of Tim Corson and Universal Door Systems.  (Emphasis added.) Moreover, Alabama Door's manager, Jack Cherry, testified that Corson was employed by Alabama Door with the expectation that Corson's personality would generate new business in the service department through personal customer contact. We thus conclude that Universal had a bona fide interest in preventing the subversion of the special customer relationships that it employed Corson to build. See James S. Kemper & Co. Southeast, Inc., 434 So.2d at 1384 (clientele acquaintance involved clearly constitute[d] a protectable interest). Calhoun v. Brendle, Inc., 502 So.2d 689 (Ala.1986), is clearly distinguishable on its facts and does not support Corson's contention that Universal had no protectable interest in his employment.