The covenant not to compete that Ms. Rice signed as a part of her employment contract at Suffolk Speech and Hearing Center (“Suffolk Speech”) is most likely going to be found enforceable. As found in Technical Aid Corp v. Allen, there is a three prong test to determine whether or not a restrictive covenant is reasonable and therefore enforceable. 591 A.2d 262, 265-66 (N.H. 1991). The first being, is the restriction greater than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer. Id. Secondly, does the restriction impose an undue hardship on the employee. Id. at 266. And lastly, is the restriction injurious to the public. Id. For the purposes of this memo, only the first two elements will be analyzed as the third has already been found to be a non- issue. Because the covenant that Ms. Rice signed at the start of her employment at Suffolk Speech was reasonable in that it protects Suffolk speech from competition in an appropriate surrounding area that does not pose an undue hardship, it will be very difficult for the court to deem the covenant unenforceable.
The first issue that must go satisfied or unsatisfied is whether or not the restriction from the covenant not to compete was greater than necessary to protect to legitimate interests of Suffolk Speech. Id. The court must evaluate a few things when determining whether this element is satisfied or not. Important factors to determine if the restriction is greater than necessary includes the size of the company,