Keywords
Noncompete agreements, Restrictive covenants, Choice-of-law, Party autonomy, Employment contracts, Public policy, Conflicts of law, Louisiana Civil Code, Louisiana Revised Statutes, Texas
Abstract
Employment contracts that cross state lines often raise complex legal issues, particularly when they involve noncompete agreements. This article examines and compares the different approaches taken by Texas and Louisiana regarding the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Texas courts exercise broad discretion in deciding whether to enforce a parties’ choice-of-law provision, often leading to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes in noncompete disputes. This approach undermines party autonomy, incentivizes forum shopping, and allows courts to manipulate outcomes based on unclear standards of “fundamental public policy.” Louisiana courts, on the other hand, are relatively consistent in their choice-of-law analyses in noncompete disputes. In contrast with the broad discretion exercised by Texas courts in this area of the law, Louisiana courts rely on statutory rules that clearly define the state’s public policy on noncompete agreements, which, in turn, fosters greater consistency, judicial efficiency, and predictability in noncompete dispute decisions. Thus, this essay proposes that, in order to restore uniformity and certainty in Texas choice-of-law decisions in non-compete cases, the Texas legislature should statutorily define which laws are deemed “fundamental public policies” of the state.
Repository Citation
Claire Monsour,
Choice-of-Law for Employment Contracts: A Comparative Analysis of Texas and Louisiana Approaches to the Enforceability of Noncompete Agreements,
16 J. Civ. L. Stud.
(2024)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol16/iss1/11