Background of the Dispute
In Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Jens, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in a contract dispute involving post-employment restrictive covenants. The case stems from the resignation of Brett Jens, a former employee of Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, who left the company and later joined competitor J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis alleged that Jens violated restrictive covenants contained in his prior employment agreement and that Simplot tortiously interfered with that agreement.
Wilbur-Ellis sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions against Jens and to prevent Simplot from continuing its alleged interference. However, the district court ruled against the injunction, citing that the restrictive covenants had expired and were no longer enforceable under the terms of the employment contract.
District Court’s Findings
The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota reviewed the enforceability of the restrictive covenants and concluded that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim. A central issue was whether the restrictive covenants survived the termination of the employment agreement, which had expired on February 28, 2010.
The court emphasized that the agreement lacked a survival clause or any express language suggesting that the restrictive provisions would remain in effect beyond the contract’s expiration. As a result, the district court determined that the non-compete provisions were no longer valid and enforceable at the time of Jens’s resignation and subsequent employment with Simplot.
Arguments on Appeal
Wilbur-Ellis appealed the district court’s ruling, arguing that the restrictive covenants were intended to take effect upon the termination of Jens’s employment, rather than expiration of the written agreement. Conversely, Simplot cross-appealed, asserting that the agreement was made with Wilbur-Ellis Air, LLC, not Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, and thus Wilbur-Ellis lacked standing to enforce the provisions.
Eighth Circuit Court’s Decision
In its opinion dated May 30, 2025, Judge L. Steven Grasz, writing for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court applied the standard of abuse of discretion and concluded that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying the injunction.
The appellate court reiterated that the employment agreement did not contain a survival clause or any language extending the restrictive covenants post-expiration. Therefore, Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to prevail on its contract claims—a key factor in determining whether a preliminary injunction should be granted.
Legal Implications
This ruling highlights the critical importance of clear contractual language in employment agreements, especially concerning restrictive covenants such as non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Employers seeking to enforce such provisions must ensure the agreement specifies their duration and applicability beyond the term of employment.
Legal professionals and corporate counsel reviewing employment contracts should pay particular attention to drafting enforceable post-termination clauses and to specifying the legal entities involved in the contract.