## Facts

- Circle C Resources provided day and residential habilitation services to disabled clients in multiple Wyoming counties.
- Charlene Hassler, a certified nursing assistant, was hired in 2015 to provide residential habilitation care to a Circle C client in Hassler’s home.
- At hiring, Hassler signed a confidentiality and noncompetition agreement barring her, during employment and for 24 months after, from working in any competitive capacity for any competitor in any area where Circle C provided or was authorized to provide services.
- The agreement included a clause stating that if any term was unenforceable, a court could substitute reasonable restrictions.
- In 2017, the client switched day habilitation providers; Hassler ended her employment with Circle C but continued providing care to the client (who remained living in her home) under a different provider.
- Circle C sued for breach of the noncompete; it conceded the original 24-month and multi-county scope were unreasonable but requested enforcement as narrowed to 12 months and two counties.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming courts may use the “blue pencil” doctrine to modify an unreasonable employee noncompetition agreement to make it reasonable and enforceable.
2. Whether a facially unreasonable employee noncompete is void as against public policy and therefore unenforceable as written.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Circle C.
- The court held Wyoming courts may not use the blue pencil rule to revise unreasonable employee noncompetes.
- Because the noncompete was unreasonable on its face, it was void as against public policy.
- The case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Hassler.

## Legal Principles

- Employee noncompetes are disfavored and are enforceable only if reasonable in duration and geographic scope and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, without undue hardship to the employee or harm to the public.
- Wyoming courts will not reform or partially enforce a materially overbroad employee noncompete by judicial modification; the covenant must stand or fall as written.
- A contractual clause inviting judicial substitution of “reasonable restrictions” does not authorize courts to enforce a noncompete that is void as an unreasonable restraint of trade.
- When a noncompete is facially unreasonable (including excessive time, territory, or functional breadth), it is unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

## Conclusion

Wyoming rejected judicial reformation of employee noncompetes, holding that an overbroad restraint is void as against public policy and cannot be salvaged by narrowing it in court.


Hassler v. Circle C Res., 505 P.3d 169 (Wyo. 2022)