[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-282421-105":53,"doc-detail-282421-en":119},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":112,"head_meta":114,"extra_data":116,"updated_unix":118},105,"en","non-competition-by-employee-choice-forfeiture-for-competition-legal-analysis","Non-competition By Employee Choice - Forfeiture for Competition - legal analysis","","Analysis of non-competition agreements framed through the “employee choice doctrine” explains how employers can craft enforceable post-employment restrictions without relying on traditional reasonableness rules. The discussion contrasts typical covenant-not-to-compete limits under American common law with an alternative structure: forfeiture of post-employment benefits if an employee chooses to work for a rival. Case-based reasoning addresses validity of forfeiture clauses in pension and incentive benefit plans, their distinction from injunction-based covenants, and related requirements such as repayment of already received benefits.",{"@graph":63,"@context":111},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/non-competition-by-employee-choice-forfeiture-for-competition-legal-analysis/282421/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/non-competition-by-employee-choice-forfeiture-for-competition-legal-analysis/282421.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"วิน","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"How does a forfeiture-for-competition clause differ from a covenant not to compete?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"A forfeiture-for-competition clause is not a covenant not to compete, so it generally does not permit the employer to seek an anti-competition injunction. Instead, it ties financial outcomes to the employee’s decision to compete and may require repayment in some circumstances.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":113,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":115,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":117,"site_id":56},282421,1790215312,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":120},{"doc_id":117,"user_id":121,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":122,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":123,"file_id":124,"file_url":125,"file_type":126,"file_size":127,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":79,"language":128,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":129,"faqs":130,"seo_title":131,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":132,"read_time":73},2336475104736,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c5e0e5b17e70?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786591360781797222","Non-competition By Employee Choice  \nBy Michael Starr and Amy L. Strauss *  \nRecognizing the competitive advantage achieved by the talent and business savvy of their key employees, companies today put great stock in noncompetition agreements that ban employees from quitting and going to work for a rival. Great pains are put into drafting “reasonable” restrictions in the hope that they will, by virtue of their reasonableness, be judicially enforced. As it turns out, this is often fool's gold. But, under a long-established though oft-overlooked common-law principle that is now known as the “employee choice doctrine,” very powerful non-competition protections can be devised that do not depend on reasonability.  \nMany go wrong in assuming that if the duration and geographical scope of a noncompetition covenant is finely tuned enough, it will be judicially enforced. Under American common law, however, as applied in most states, a non-competition covenant cannot pass the threshold test of reasonability unless it serves the employer's legitimate protectible interest or if the employee's services are unique. See, e.g., BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 389 (1999) . Thus, employers can enforce non-competition covenants to prevent themisappropriation of trade secrets or confidential customer lists, or to prevent former employees from trading on client relationships that they developed through the resources of their employer. But, the bald desire to prevent a talented individual from quitting to compete with his employer is not recognized as a protectible interest, and a covenant-not-to-compete serving only that end will not be enforced no matter how otherwise “reasonable” it may be.  \nForfeiture for Competition  \nA pragmatic alternative is to link payment of post-employment benefits to an obligation not to quit and compete. Customarily, this is made a provision of the plan providing the benefit, such as a stock option or incentive compensation plan. Under the employee choice doctrine, an employee who leaves the company may choose to accept those benefits from his employer provided she promises not to work for a competitor. If she later changes her mind and accepts a position with a rival firm, she forfeits unpaid benefits and may even be required to pay back what was already received.  \nAn early case to recognize such a forfeiture-for-compensation clause was Kristt v. Whelan, 164 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1 st Dep't 1957), aff'd without opinion , 5 N.Y.2d 807  \n(1958) . In Kristt, an employee was the beneficiary of a pension trust created by his employer. The trust agreement provided in part that if the employee became employed in any competing business, he would forfeit his trust-fund [rights.](rights. Id. at)[ Id.](rights. Id. at)[ at](rights. Id. at)[ ](rights. Id. at)[241](241). (This was, of course, before ERISA. ) When the employee quit his job to open a competing business, the employer invoked the forfeiture clause and had the trust stop payment of the benefits. The appellate court held the forfeiture-forcompetition clause to be valid because the employee had “the choice of preserving his rights under the trust by refraining from competition   or risking forfeiture of such rights by exercising his right to compete.” [Id.](Id. at 243. This)[ at 243. This](Id. at 243. This)[ ](Id. at 243. This)holding was based on the hoary rule that “[i]t is no unreasonable restriction of the liberty of a man to earn his living if he may be relieved of the restriction by forfeiting a contract right or by adhering to the provisions of his contract.” Id.  \nApplying the principles of Kristt, courts in New York and other states have upheld forfeiture-for-competition clauses contained in pension or similar benefit plans. See, e.g., Rochester Corporation v. W.L. Rochester, 450 F.2d 118 (4th Cir. 1971)(applying Virginia law); Dollgener v. Robertson Fleet Services, Inc. , 527 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. Civ.App. 1975); Van Pelt v. Berefco, Inc. , 208 N. E.2d 858 (Ill. Su","cbCaikcCgZepgZPR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikcCgZepgZPR","pdf",26055,"English","# Non-competition By Employee Choice\n## Employee choice doctrine and enforceability\n## Forfeiture for competition and benefit plans\n## Distinction from covenant not to compete","[{\"question\":\"How does a forfeiture-for-competition clause differ from a covenant not to compete?\",\"answer\":\"A forfeiture-for-competition clause is not a covenant not to compete, so it generally does not permit the employer to seek an anti-competition injunction. Instead, it ties financial outcomes to the employee’s decision to compete and may require repayment in some circumstances.\"}]","Non-competition By Employee Choice - Forfeiture for Competition - legal analysis | PDF",1789574102]