## Facts

- Dr. Glenna Hopper, a veterinarian, worked for All Pet Animal Clinic in Laramie, Wyoming, first part-time (1988) and later full-time (1989).
- The parties initially operated under an oral employment arrangement that included a noncompetition understanding, later memorialized in a written employment contract in December 1989 and later modified.
- The written contract provided that, after termination, Hopper would not practice small animal medicine within a five-mile radius of Laramie’s corporate limits for three years.
- The contract allowed either party to terminate the employment relationship upon thirty days’ notice.
- After disputes about Hopper’s interest in acquiring or operating a competing clinic, her employment was terminated in 1991.
- Soon after termination, Hopper opened a small-animal veterinary practice in Laramie within the restricted area, competing with All Pet and Alpine Animal Hospital.
- The employers claimed Hopper’s competition caused client loss and harm to goodwill.

## Issues

1. Whether the noncompete’s scope (five-mile radius; small animal medicine) and duration (three years) were reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate employer interests, or an unreasonable restraint of trade.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting injunctive relief, including whether it adequately considered undue hardship and public injury.
3. Whether the employers proved damages (including lost profits) with sufficient certainty to recover for breach of the noncompete.

## Decision

- The court held the covenant was enforceable only in part.
- The court affirmed the five-mile geographic limit and the restriction to small animal medicine as reasonable.
- The court held the three-year duration was an unreasonable restraint of trade and modified enforcement to a one-year restriction.
- The court affirmed the grant of injunctive relief as modified.
- The court affirmed the denial of damages because the claimed losses, particularly lost profits, were speculative and not proven with required certainty.

## Legal Principles

- Covenants restraining trade are disfavored and are construed against the party seeking enforcement; the enforcing party bears the burden to show reasonableness and necessity to protect legitimate business interests.
- A noncompete is enforceable only to the extent it (1) is no greater than necessary to protect the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public.
- Reasonableness depends on duration, geographic scope, and subject-matter limits, and on balancing employer protection against the employee’s ability to work.
- Courts may partially enforce an overbroad noncompete by modifying unreasonable terms (such as excessive duration) while leaving reasonable terms intact.
- Lost-profit damages require proof of net profits with clear, non-speculative evidence; conjectural estimates do not support recovery.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court modified the injunction enforcing a veterinary employment noncompete by reducing its duration from three years to one year while upholding its geographic and practice-area limits, and it affirmed the denial of damages because the employers failed to prove lost profits with non-speculative evidence.


Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1993)