Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog
Some employers weaponize non‑competes—sending threat letters to your new employer or recruiter until your offer evaporates. When that happens, our firm doesn’t just play defense. We file a declaratory‑judgment action to invalidate the restraint and bring tortious‑interference claims for money, stress and punitive damages against the former employer for intentionally and unjustifiably getting you fired, scaring off or interfering with you accept9ing a known offer.
Why this works (in Illinois):
-
Non‑competes are enforceable only if they’re reasonable and protect a legitimate business interest (and even then, only within tight limits on time, territory, and scope). Illinois’ Supreme Court calls this a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test. Illinois Courts
-
Adequate consideration is required. Illinois courts have long questioned “sign it or lose your job” covenants; absent additional value, two years of continued employment has often been the benchmark. The Illinois Freedom to Work Act now codifies that adequate consideration can be two years or other real professional/financial benefits. Illinois Courts+1
-
“Any capacity” bans are usually dead on arrival. A clause barring an employee from working for a “competitor in any capacity” was struck as overbroad and unfixable. If a restraint prevents you from taking even a non‑competitive role, a court is likely to toss it. Bankruptcy Litigation
-
Overreaching non‑solicits also fail. Provisions that bar contact with every customer (including ones you never touched) are commonly invalid—and courts sometimes refuse to “blue‑pencil” them. Illinois Courts
Our playbook when an offer is pulled because of a non‑compete:
-
Fast merits review & demand. We analyze the covenant against Reliable Fire’s reasonableness factors and statutory requirements (notice/attorney‑consult advisories; income thresholds), then send a tailored letter explaining why the restraint is void. Illinois Courts+1
-
Injunction + declaratory judgment. We seek a court order declaring the provision unenforceable and stopping further interference. Where appropriate, we also move for emergency relief. Illinois General Assembly
-
Tortious‑interference claims. Under Illinois law, interference with at‑will employment is actionable when a third party intentionally and unjustifiably induces a termination or rescission. There are privileges for good‑faith competition, but they fall away when the actor overstates rights or acts with malice. Justia Law+1
-
Fee‑shift leverage. If the employer sues on the covenant and loses, the Act lets a prevailing employee recover attorney’s fees and costs—another reason judges scrutinize shaky restraints. Illinois General Assembly
A recent (anonymized) illustration from our files
A senior operations professional accepted a role with a national company. Within days, the former employer sent a “cease‑and‑desist” citing a non‑compete that banned work for any competitor “in any capacity.” The new employer panicked and withdrew the offer. We immediately threatened filed for a declaration that the restraint was void and to bring a tortious‑interference claim for large damages. The overbreadth (“any capacity”) and lack of adequate consideration drove a swift resolution that restored our client’s career path and secured damages as part of a settlement.
What about the FTC’s “ban on non‑competes”?
You may have heard headlines about a federal ban. As of September 2025, that rule is not in effect—the FTC has acceded to vacatur and dismissed its appeals. Translation: Illinois law governs non‑competes here. Federal Trade Commission+1
Bottom line: If a former employer cost you a job by leaning on an unenforceable covenant—or knowingly interferes with a job you’ve lined up—we will fight back with the right mix of declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and tortious‑interference damages.
Free consultation. Call 630‑333‑0333 or contact us online. We represent professionals across Illinois in non‑compete and non‑solicit disputes.