## Facts

- Glacier Group provided information-technology executive and employee recruiting and placement services.
- Daniel Buffkin worked for Glacier beginning in 2008 as an independent-contractor sales recruiter under an Independent Contractor Agreement stating he was not an employee.
- Buffkin’s work involved receiving job descriptions and client information from Glacier, locating candidates, and providing candidate information back to Glacier.
- Buffkin was paid 20% of fees collected by Glacier from placements originated by him; fees varied by client.
- The agreement included a restrictive covenant barring Buffkin for three years after termination from being “connected in any way” with any business competing with Glacier in employee recruitment or performance placement with employers having offices in the continental United States.
- Glacier terminated the agreement in 2012 and later learned Buffkin was working as an IT recruiter.
- Glacier sued to enforce the covenant and sought a preliminary injunction; the trial court granted an injunction broadly tracking the covenant’s activity and nationwide scope.
- Buffkin appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the covenant and Glacier’s asserted business interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred by granting a preliminary injunction enforcing a three-year, continental-United-States noncompete against an independent-contractor IT recruiter.
2. Whether Glacier showed a legitimate protectable interest sufficient to justify the covenant’s breadth.
3. Whether the covenant’s activity restriction (“connected in any way” with any competitor) and geographic scope (continental United States) were unreasonably overbroad under Indiana law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held the trial court’s injunction order was clearly erroneous because Glacier showed, at most, a minimal protectable interest.
- The court concluded the covenant’s activity restriction and nationwide geographic scope were overbroad and unreasonable in relation to Glacier’s proven interests.

## Legal Principles

- Covenants not to compete are disfavored restraints on trade in Indiana and are strictly construed against the party seeking enforcement.
- A restrictive covenant is enforceable only if it is reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest (e.g., goodwill, confidential information, or advantage from representative customer contacts).
- The party seeking to enforce a covenant must present evidence supporting the asserted protectable interest; generalized claims of confidentiality or customer relationships are insufficient.
- Activity and geographic restrictions must be reasonably limited to the scope of the protectable interest; a ban preventing work in an industry “in any way” and extending nationwide is suspect absent proof of corresponding risk to goodwill or confidential information.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the preliminary injunction because Glacier did not substantiate trade-secret/confidential-information or customer-goodwill interests adequate to support a three-year, nationwide prohibition on Buffkin being “connected in any way” with IT recruiting competitors, making the covenant unreasonably broad under Indiana law.


Buffkin v. Glacier Grp., 997 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)