Virginia Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal of Non-Compete Case, Emphasizing Need for Case-by-Case Analysis

by Littler

In Assurance Data, Inc. v. John Malyevac, No. 121989 (Sept. 12, 2013), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Fairfax County Circuit Court had been too quick to rule on the enforceability of a covenant not to compete, reversing the court’s dismissal of the employer’s complaint and remanding the case to the trial court.  This ruling signals an important shift in the procedural and strategic landscape surrounding non-compete agreements in the Commonwealth, as the court has effectively limited a frequently used device for challenging and disposing of non-compete claims early in litigation.


While employed by Assurance Data, Inc., the employee entered into an employment agreement (the Agreement) prohibiting him from soliciting, providing, promoting or selling products or services that competed with the company within a 50 mile radius of its Virginia office for six months after termination.  The Agreement also prohibited the employee from soliciting customers of the company for any business which is competitive with the company “for a period of twelve (12) [sic] after the date of termination . . . .”                                                        

After resigning, the employee went to work for another company, where he engaged in competing activities.  His former employer filed suit to enforce the Agreement, to request the return of all confidential information, and to recover compensatory damages.

The former employee filed a demurrer to the complaint,1 claiming that the allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Specifically, he argued that the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in the Agreement were overbroad and unenforceable.  By way of example, he pointed to the provision prohibiting him from soliciting customers for “twelve (12) [sic] after the date of termination” with no indication whether the duration was days, weeks, months or years.  His former company argued that the court could not decide the enforceability issue on demurrer, because doing so would deny it the opportunity to present evidence that the restraints are reasonable and no greater than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. The Fairfax County Circuit Court disagreed with his former company, and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, holding “as a matter of law the provision is unenforceable.”

Supreme Court Ruling

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia restated that the purpose of a demurrer is to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and that, unlike its role in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court does not evaluate the merits of a claim on demurrer.

Further, the court reiterated the rule that a non-compete agreement must be evaluated on its own merits, “balancing the provisions of the contract with the circumstances of the businesses and employees involved.”2  It also revived the principle that each case involving the enforceability of non-competes “must be determined on its own facts.”3  The court then restated that the employer bears the burden of showing that the scope of the non-compete is no greater than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.  And it is during that analysis that the courts consider the function, geographic scope and duration elements of the non-compete restriction.  

The court stated that “restraints on competition are neither enforceable nor unenforceable in a factual vacuum.”4  Importantly, where restrictions appear unenforceable on their face, the court noted that employers may be able to prove that the restraint is actually reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case.5  In this context, the court ruled that the trial court had inappropriately dismissed the case before the former employer had the opportunity to present evidence as to the reasonableness of the non-compete.  

Significance for Employers

In Malyevac, the court moved away from a trend, evident in the last several years, where non-compete restrictions were summarily invalidated.  Employers now have a greater opportunity to establish that the contested restrictions are necessary, truly embracing a “case-by-case” factual analysis, rather than a truncated focus primarily confined to the words used in the non-compete clause.  To that point, it will be much more difficult for defendants to dispose of non-compete claims prior to discovery and an evidentiary hearing of some sort (such as a plea in bar).  That said, Malyevac is not without limitations.  The court was careful to state that its holding was based on the fact that the former employer opposed the demurrer specifically on the ground that it sought to present evidence to prove the reasonableness of the restraint.  By way of comparison, in Modern Environments, the employer did not offer an argument or evidence proving its legitimate business interests were served by the restraint at issue. 

The significance of this ruling for employers in the Commonwealth cannot be overstated.  Going forward, recognizing that disputes concerning non-competes are likely to be more fully litigated, employers should carefully draft such agreements to ensure full compliance with Virginia law, and consult counsel as appropriate.  Employers should take care to review the scope of their non-compete agreements to ensure they are narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate business interest and that they reflect the realities of the employer’s competitive environment, taking the employee’s position into consideration as well other factors such as (1) the nature of the information the employer seeks to protect, and (2) the efforts it has taken to safeguard its competitive position with respect to this information.  As part of this process, employers should consider what facts they would assert either in a complaint or an evidentiary hearing to justify the scope of the non-compete elements and demonstrate their relationship to the business interest they are intended to protect. 

1 A demurrer is the state court equivalent of a federal motion to dismiss.

2 Quoting Omniplex World Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Investigs. Servs., 270 Va. 246, ___ (2005).

3 Quoting Modern Env’ts., Inc. v. Stinnet, 263 Va. 491, 493 (2002).

4 Citing its rulings in Simmons v. Miller, ___ Va. ___ (2001), Modern Env’ts, 263 Va. at 491 and Home Paramount Pest Control Cos. v. Shaffer, 282 Va. 412 (2011).

5 See Thomas Flaherty and Rebecca Roche, Virginia Supreme Court Further Narrows Non-Compete Covenant Enforceability, Littler ASAP (Dec. 16, 2011). 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.