The court will likely rule that En Vogue did not have a legitimate business interest as the salon cannot prove a substantial relationship with their clients under the legitimate business interest requirement. In order to be able to fulfill the legitimate business interest requirement by proving substantial relationship with clients one must show the interactions between the clients and employer, length of time employed at the company, a “specific” particular, identifiable individual, and solicitation. Under Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(b)(3) “The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant. The term…show more content… Anich Indus., Inc. v. Raney, 751 So.2d 767, 771 (Fla. Dis. Ct. 2000). In Anich, the court held that Anich, the employer, had not demonstrated a legitimate business interest that was in need of protection as the relationships with the clients were not substantial. “The purpose of the statute is to protect the relationships between the employer and their customers”; however, in Anich, there was not a “substantial” relationship that was deemed with any of the customers that testified on Anich’s behalf. Id. at 771. Furthermore, the customers who did testify on behalf of Anich, stated that they “made their equipment purchases based mostly on the cost as well as the supplier’s ability to provide the goods quickly.” Id. Here, the court found that there was little evidence that could be considered as a “substantial relationship” between Anich and the customers based off the customers’ testimony. Hence, there was not a “substantial relationship” formed based on the clients’ testimony as the customers solely sought a company that could deliver equipment in a timely manner and at the lowest cost.
