Ok, so you tell your current trainer he/she needs to sign a non compete agreement. They can easily say " I don’t think so ", leave and actively recruit your clients.
Maybe trying to do it with an existing trainer at your farm isn’t such a good idea but would work the next time you take on a new trainer.
I think the Jr. Trainer leaving to hang out his/her own shingle is a timeless and natural thing. You can’t prevent it and shouldn’t try. After all, you displaced someone else while you were coming up too, right?
Also, it’s so hard to build a business in the shadows of an established program that I think a non-compete agreement would be redundant. As the newbie, chances are you don’t have the capital to build/lease a faboo facility, clients with fancy horses and $$ to get to the show ring that you would need to eclipse the established guy.
But there are things the Old Dog can learn from the young’un. Many of us might go to the little guy because he’s cheaper and we’re financially wrung out… he stays home and actually teaches and trains…they have a quieter farm with better T/O… or is amazingly talented and has people skills that run circles around yours. If so, watch and learn.
OP, I see where you are going with this. I, personally, have been subject to a rather ridiculously broad (2 years, entire state) non-compete and maybe just knowing it was in place was enough, subconsciously, to keep me from competing against my former employer? Who knows. If she’d sued me I’d have sued her right back for telling me (a couple times) I shouldn’t have kids if I want to succeed. 
That said, as pointed out court battles suck and you are going to spend a lot of money and time and increase your stress level if you try to enforce it. If the person leaving is popular with your clients (and he/she should be if you hired a good worker) then you are going to look like the big bad business owner and many clients will probably leave you regardless; and your reputation in your horse community could be quite tarnished by all these disgruntled individuals and all the other BO’s spreading the vicious rumor about your downfall/desparation evidenced by you actually feeling threatened enough to sue a former worker. Personally, I don’t think it is worth it. Creates bad will.
Actually, in the horse show world it is to prevent them from taking clients with them when they go. It’s not at all uncommon…and not aware of any need to enforce it-most newer trainers do not want to damage any relationships built with their former employer and their network of contacts.
Over the years have seen what happens with the less then ethical assistant works 3 or 4 years for a trainer and then secretly sets up a new place of business and offers the clients all sorts of enticements to move including reduced board and show charges while still working for the head trainer. Then they give notice and leave with a bunch of clients they poached on that trainer’s dime.
The fact all the “grass is greener” crap does not pan out, no surprise. But that has nothing to do with the fact the non compete will discourage this type of thing. If the clients want to leave after it’s up, that’s fine.
Ones I have seen have been 50 miles for a year but other areas maybe larger or smaller depending on the location. That gives the former assistent plenty of room to get started.
One thing though…this needs to be agreed to and signed at the time the assistent is hired on as a condition of employment. Not sprung on them when it’s time to say goodbye.
1 Like
[QUOTE=fordtraktor;4203925]
I understand your concerns. IMO, the best thing you can do to prevent what you worry about is to let them go graciously and tell them they will be welcome back in the future if they wish, be friendly and maintain good relations when you see them out and about, and then welcome them back with open arms when they realize they made a mistake.
Sometimes hard to do, but we have had great success with returns using this plan. Probably half the horses on our farm left for greener or cheaper pastures at some point, but are now back with us and glad to be here.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I’ve seen these kind of disputes come up before, and the angry barn owner trying to keep clients who want to leave will never come out a winner. It can create literally a decade of bad PR.
not buying it findeight. if the client wants to leave, then they have every right to leave. this is america and i think non compete agreements go against what our country is all about. freedom to do what you want. and if the customer leaves, then obviously something is lacking that makes them want to leave. no one should be allowed to say sorry you cant go with that trainer because i have a piece of paper in my hand that says non compete!
hey its up to the customer and its up to the assistant trainer and its really basically a choice of whether the assistant wants to burn bridges or not. i think most assistants would rather not burn bridges with a well established barn. but that still cannot prevent a customer from leaving if they decide that the only reason they were at the barn was because of the assistant whom they have just worked with.
Sure we all have the right to leave.
But when an assistant actively recruits out of the head trainer’s pool of clients on that trainers time? And badmouths them (and they all do if they go this route), creates a hostile environment that makes them want to move…one that did not exsist before?
That sucks. Some years ago I was in a situation where an assistant was doing just that. There were all sorts of sideways glances, whispers, conversations that abruptly stopped when anybody not in that group walked within earshot. No surprise that she up and quit and took 6 clients with her. Admit to feeling a little left out-was not “in” on it. 4 of the 6 returned in a few months.
Same thing happened a few years ago, not on the same scale, but there was a definate division among clients in the barn, almost like a clique.
This type agreement may not be enforceable or worth persuing if it is in your state, but it sure heads off alot of problems like this between clients. I can tell you, I was aware I was “left out” of the chosen group both times and it made the barn much less pleasant.
1 Like
I don’t see how a client can be held to comply with an agreement that is between the jr. trainer and the BO/head trainer…Or is client made to sign a similar agreement?
As a client I really don’t care whether a BO and/or Head Trainer has someone sign a non-compete or not. It has no impact on me or my choices in the present or in the future. As an attorney I am at a loss to understand why a client would care.
OTOH as a business attorney I do understand a BO/Head Trainer wanting a non-compete. I have seen too many less than ethical moves my subordinates to steal clients by negotiating with the client before they have given notice of their plans to leave (both inside and outside the horse business). Non-competes are tough - they have to be limited in place and in time and they are difficult to enforce. However, they do make a point. They make an employee aware of the appropriate way to exit. They make an employee aware that the employer is aware of the possibility of inappropriate behavior. Most importantly, they make both people talk about the issues and agree on a way to handle them
As an employee, don’t sign an unreasonable non-compete - or don’t sign one at all if you do not want to. Its all about bargaining power. My guess is that an established trainer with their own clients is not going to be asked to sign one (they are already bringing business to the table) a brand new trainer might.
Either way, clients will do what they want BUT a departing trainer should not be solicit clients for their new business under the table…
[QUOTE=jeta;4204993]
I don’t see how a client can be held to comply with an agreement that is between the jr. trainer and the BO/head trainer…Or is client made to sign a similar agreement?[/QUOTE]
A couple of things that seem like they need to be clarified:
In states where they are enforceable, non-compete agreements are standard at most large companies and becoming more common in smaller companies. They are often incorporated as clauses in the initial employment contract.
Reasonableness is the key. The purpose is to protect the employer who is spending resources training this employee and from whom the employee is learning. The agreements do not prohibit an assistant trainer from leaving and setting up another business. They prevent the assistant trainer from leaving and setting up shop so as to directly compete with the trainer immediately, in the same area (hence the usual 1 year, 10 mile radius requirements). Most of the non-competes that are found reasonable are restricted to a rather small area. If a clients wants the assistant trainer, they will likely not have to travel much further.
The client is not subject to the agreement. It is between the trainer and assistant trainer (employer and employee)
Incorporating a non-disclosure clause in the contract is also typical as someone suggested earlier.
In my experience, non-compete agreements/clauses honestly aren’t a big deal, especially when introduced as a clause in an employment contract. I can’t think of anywhere I worked that didn’t have them.
As a side note, the lawyers who wrote the laws don’t allow lawyers to be bound by non-compete agreements
2 Likes
When exactly would you ask a trainer to sign this agreement ? Before employing them or when they leave ? If the former - a trainer with sense would not work there. If the latter why would they sign it if they were leaving anyway ? The only way an employer could twist a trainers arm would be to withhold a final payment - and that is illegal.
Just to add to the two very thoughtful posts above on the legal side –
If the noncompete is enforced and the departing employee loses, it likely means the former employee would have to pay the original trainer damages for the lost business from the clients who went with him. No one would force the clients to go back, etc.
Clients don’t have to do, or sign, anything. They may go as they please if the assistant leaves.
But that clause sure helps keep the client from being put in the awkward situation that occurs when all this subterfuge goes on as assistant tries to set up the new business before leaving…or letting the head trainer know.
Sort of sets the guidlines, an exit strategy if you will.
Perhaps rather than a noncompete, a better way to do it is to start from the beginning with setting up an exit strategy.
Right up front, talk about how the relationship might look in 5 years, how you’d want it to look, how it might dissolve.
Obviously one scenario is that JR comes in, sucks, and leaves fairly quickly. Probably without any clients.
Another is that JR comes in, works with the up and coming kids, and is ready to be on her own in a few years. Obviously, if she has a great relationship with a kid that she taught and you never did, the client is going to want to go with her.
So instead of setting up arbitrary time and space, talk about how that growth will occur, and what you’d like to see. Think for yourself how you want to keep a relationship with your clients so they have a reason to stay with you.
A noncompete will hurt only the ethical and honorable jr trainer. Someone unethical and deceitful will simply ignore it.
We had a situation with gymnastics here. The gym had an owner who had never been a gymnast - she was more into aikido, but she had young gym classes. She taught some herself, and some was taught by young adults she had taught over the years. Some were good and some were scary - I remember one girl in particular that we parents freaked out about, putting the kids in unsafe situations.
Then she hired a young woman who was awesome - a former elite gymnast and a very skilled young coach.
It was apparent fairly quickly that the new coach was far better than the owner and that she didn’t fit in as just a junior employee. To top it off, the gym was really too small for any serious gymnastics.
She started her own gym, and yes, without her doing any active recruiting, she had every kid she had ever taught within a month. Personally, I would have stopped taking my daughter to gymnastics rather than stayed at the old gym.
I’m sure the original owner is bitter, but she kept it to herself… and who knows, maybe we’ll go back some day for aikido, because she didn’t burn the bridge.
Wow this is a nightmare trust me!
So fresh out of school i got a job here in Maryville, TN teaching at a small hunter jumper barn. I had 3-4 existing clients and boarders when i moved here. Slowly building my business.
About 6 months after I was established my former boss called me into her office and told me that if I wanted to continue living on the farm and carry on my business that I would have to sign a non-compete agreement that stated that I would not train anywhere within a 100 mile radius for two years. At that point I was terrified of losing my job, home and livelihood and reluctantly signed.
I should have seen this as a major red flag, but i truly was happy where I was at. As business grew (35 students after 2 years) the employee/employer relationship quickly went down the drain. Barn owner was excessively drinking every night, embarassing herself in front of clientele and also harassing me.
I felt a very strong sense of responsibility to my students and also all of the horses in my care and stuck it out as long as I could.
But after 2.5 years I decided that i couldn’t work in that capacity any longer.
I agreed to stay until the end of show season and also agreed out of my own grace to help her find an employee to manage the barn.
I found a trainer, moved her in… gave her my apartment and trained her in the routine. Once she was moved in I was out.
Unfortunately the harassment continued as later I also found out that former Barn owner was spreading lies to my former clientele about me.
I didnt teach or ride for 6 months and im just now returning to my former state and sense of well being. It was a very stressful time.
My advice is to never sign a non-compete agreement. It could mean your livelihood and also put you in a very bad financial spot.
Also many states and most judges will find non-compete agreements hard to hold up becuase they can cause “financial hardship” on the employee.
I also later found out after speaking to a lawyer that i was forced to sign under duress… ie.- sign this or leave immediately
Anyway if your employer is willing to hire you they should at that point be confident in your sense of ethics, anything else is asking too much.
And again, nobody should be blindsided by this kind of thing after putting in several years of satifactory work…that, indeed, indicates fear on the part of the head trainer that you are doing a better job. Especially that overexcessive 100 miles for 2 years.
If it’s not presented up front as a condition of employment, I wouldn’t sign it. Also if it’s unreasonable, like the 100 miles for 2 years, either negotiate it to something more reasonable or don’t sign it.
A non compete should not require you to have to move at least 100 miles away just to get another job or start up your own, that’s bogus.
I am bumping this oldie up as I was wondering about non compete clauses and leases. How can a non riding/training barn owner have a non compete? Without the training services, the barn is simply a boarding barn. Also, if you lease a horse to a barn owned by a non riding/training owner, the lease horse would be under the guidance of the trainer correct? So if the relationship between the non riding/training barn owner and trainer ends, the lease horse should go with the
trainer. Agree/disagree? Anyone ever deal with this?
I’ve never seen this… That said, contracts can say anything - the question is really what exactly is being asked? I don’t understand the concept of “non-compete” in this situation - compete with what?
“If you lease a horse to a barn…” - whyever would you do that? Presumably you’re leasing either to a business (trainer/school), or an individual. If the trainer is an employee of the business to which the horse is leased, I’d expect the horse to stay with the business.
As a horse owner, my leases specify the client/trainer combination. But if I were leasing to a particular trainer’s program, I would specify that. “Non-compete” would not enter in.
What am I missing?
1 Like
In the 10 years since the last iteration of this discussion, I am imagining that some of the opinions will have gained in sophistication. These days a great many college-degree jobs require a non-compete agreement of some kind, so they are not so unfamiliar.
Sometimes it doesn’t really matter if it is enforceable. The point is that if someone signs it, they feel morally bound by it and will act accordingly.
In a barn that does offer training at a higher level than up-down lessons, I think a non-compete for the resident trainers/instructors is a good idea. I know of a barn with about 25 boarding stalls, most boarders active competitors, and with a resident trainer. One after another, after a couple of years, each trainer in turn decided that the arrangement was less than fair and left to set up their own barn, In each case they chose a close location precisely so they could take as many clients with them as wanted to travel. The last trainer I personally knew of took 14 boarding clients with her - that’s 14 out of the 25 stalls. It was the clients’ right to go, but had the new location not been so convenient many of them would not have gone.
In that case the BO would have been better served had she reconsidered the arrangement she insisted on with the resident trainer, given that it repeatedly failed to keep the trainers. But she could also have better protected herself with a non-compete agreement.
My day job is not in the horse industry. At one of my prior jobs I signed a non-compete. It was not enforceable. I did not feel morally bound by it. I was working there for 2 years when they decided that everyone needed to sign one or they could no longer work there. The first version most of us refused to sign it since it was open ended for how long we couldn’t work with former clients. So technically I could not work with a former client 30 years in the future. Way too open ended. The second one put a time frame of 2 years. That was workable. However it was unenforceable for other reasons under PA law. I had a cousin who is a contract lawyer review it. She recommended signing it and then not worrying about it. In my industry it is unheard of for people that do my job to sign non-competes. I certainly did not feel morally bound to adhere to it since I was signing it under duress to keep my job. It would have been different if I knew about it before I took the job.
For the resident trainer mentioned above I would bet there were more issues than just her arrangements with her trainers. Most people don’t like change. For 14 out of 25 people to leave they must have been unhappy with care not just really happy with the training.
2 Likes
