Court Opinion

ID: 9696723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:56:03.328152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:26.000406
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I am in agreement with the result reached by Mr. Justice Manderino; however, I feel a need to briefly discuss the restrictive employment covenants of Marabella and Gawrys.
“[Pjublic policy permits the enforcement of restrictive covenants only if they are reasonably limited as to duration of time and geographical extent [citations omitted].” Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177, 184, 207 A. 2d 768, 772 (1965). But, in determining whether a geographic limitation has been delineated by the covenant, it is required that one look at the contract as a whole, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Plunkett Chemical Company v. Reeve, 373 Pa. 513, 95 A. 2d 925 (1953). In addition, this Court in Jacobson & Co., Inc. v. International Environment Corp., 427 Pa. 439, 235 A. 2d 612 (1967), ruled a court may properly limit the geographic extent of a restrictive covenant.
Mr. Justice Manderino apparently overlooks the above principles, but nonetheless has reached the correct result because the challenged restrictive covenant, in particular its second provision,1 is too encompassing *258to be considered a reasonable restraint. Restrictive covenants are reasonable only if they are “ ‘necessary for the protection of the employer . . . without imposing undue hardship on the employe.’ ” Jacobson, supra, 427 Pa. at 452, 235 A. 2d at 620. The particular provision here in question is far too broad to reasonably be “necessary for the protection of” Trilog, as well as being excessively burdensome upon both appellants, Marabella and Gawrys. I, therefore would invalidate this restrictive covenant, without needing to examine the feasibility of limiting said provision in scope of geographic territory.