Courts consider several factors when determining whether a non-compete agreement is reasonable, including: (i) how long the restriction lasts and the geographic area that the restriction covers (generally no more than 2 years and reasonable local area will be reasonable), (ii) whether the employee was the sole contact with customers, (iii) whether the employee possesses confidential information or trade secrets, (iv) whether the covenant operates to bar the employee's sole means of support, (v) whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee, (vi) the likelihood that the employee can find other employment if the restriction is enforced and (vii) whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment of the employee.
The actual terminology used by Florida law and courts is "Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients" What this means is that employer cannot justify having such an agreement without identifying to you or the court what exact or prospective business it hopes to protect from competition. If you could argue that this former customer is so out of possible contention for this employer so that it couldn't even has a reasonable expectation of getting their business, this would support a ruling in your favor.
See these cases:
Univ. of Florida, Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal
Plaintiff cannot establish "legitimate business interest," because it failed to establish either that Dr. Sanal had interfered with "[s]ubstantial relationships
with specific prospective
Shields v. Paving Stone Co., Inc.
Because Paving Stone did not have exclusive relationships with any of its customers and information on customers was readily obtainable through the yellow pages and trade subscriptions, the nonsolicitation/nondisclosure agreement was not reasonable to protect Paving Stone's customer base.
Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney
No legitimate business interest to support non-compete agreement There was little evidence of any exclusive or other kind of relationship that could be construed as "substantial" within the meaning of the statute. Alternatively, under Raney's interpretation, it is obvious that in less than three months with Anich she did not have the opportunity to develop a "substantial relationship" with any of her customers.
The underlined factors above support that the agreement not be enforceable against you. Likewise, the employer's "relationship" with the prior client is very tenuous for them to claim a substantial client relationship. However, unless you are willing to take the matter to court to have the contract ruled invalid, you'll not truly know if they can enforce its agreement. In short, only a court can definitively tell you whether the non-compete is enforceable, but these are the factors that would be considered by a court, and you'd have I believe a good chance to have the non-compete ruled unenforceable.
I believe this answers your question. However, if you need clarification or have follow-up questions regarding this matter, I will be happy to continue our conversation – select the Reply to Expert or Continue Conversation button. If you are otherwise satisfied with my response, please leave a positive rating as it is the only way I am able to get credit for my answers. Thank you, XXXXX XXXXX wish you all the best with this matter.