1E9Ct5D

from traditional injunctions and damages to interesting application of liquidateddamages, disgorgement of monies, and attorneys’ fees. Not only are these remediesavailable to employers, but certain employees may also assert claims for damages inconnection with overreaching restrictive covenants. 40Injunctive relief is one of the most-utilized remedies in employment restrictivecovenants. 41Injunctive relief, in this context, fulfills the premise of the restrictivecovenant, because it is used to restrict the employee’s ability to compete, solicit, etc. 42Employers should also note that some states are stricter than others in consideringinjunctive relief. Colorado, for example, requires that injunctions be narrowly drawn,and may only operate based on the terms of the underlying restrictive covenant (i.e., ifthe agreement has a 1-year restriction, the injunctive relief will have the same timelimit). 43North Carolina, by contrast, allows broader injunctive relief that may includetolling for periods of breach or pending litigation. 44In addition to injunctive relief, employers can typically also seek damages for breachesof restrictive covenants. While enjoining the offending behavior is the first step, anemployer may also suffer damages by way of lost customers, lost profits, loss ofgoodwill, and training expenses (among other things). Specific monetary damages canprove difficult, if not impossible, to prove in this context, but they are nevertheless40 See Osborn v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 446, 449 (N.D. Tex. 1993); ApplicationGroup, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881, 884 (1998).41 See DBA Enters., Inc. v. Findlay, 923 P.2d 298, 302 (Colo. Appl. 1996) (noting that injunctions are thepreferred remedy for breach of non-compete).42 Id.43 E.g., Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835, 843 (Colo. App. 2007).44 E.g., Manpower of Guilford County, Inc. v. Hedgecock, 257 S.E.2d 109, 115 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).3082723.3