Four Years Off the Field?

At 4:47 p.m. on Friday, a senior executive resigns. By Monday morning, a competitor announces the hire. The old employer opens the personnel file and finds a noncompete. The new employer says the restriction is too broad. Everyone assumes the fight will turn on what is “reasonable.”

In Florida, that assumption may now be incomplete.

The 20-second answer

Florida’s CHOICE Act creates a powerful enforcement track for certain noncompete and paid garden-leave agreements involving covered, higher-earning employees and individual contractors. A qualifying noncompete may run for as long as four years. If the statutory requirements are met and a covered employer seeks enforcement, the Act says a court must enter a preliminary injunction, subject to limited routes for modification or dissolution.

But the Act does not govern every Florida noncompete. The first question in an executive-departure dispute is no longer simply, “Is there a restriction?” It is, “Which Florida statute governs this restriction?”

The contract has to fit the statute

The CHOICE Act is aimed at a defined category of covered employees. The salary test is tied to more than twice the annual mean wage for the relevant Florida county, and health care practitioners are excluded from the definition. Coverage also depends on where the employee primarily works, or on a Florida-based employer using an agreement expressly governed by Florida law.

The paperwork matters. For a covered noncompete, the employee must receive the proposed agreement at least seven days before the offer expires, be advised in writing of the right to seek counsel, and acknowledge in writing that the employee will receive confidential information or customer relationships. A document called a “noncompete” does not automatically qualify.

Four years does not mean four years for everyone

The headline number is real: the Act defines a covered noncompete agreement with a post-employment restriction of up to four years. It also recognizes covered garden leave lasting up to four years. Under garden leave, the employment relationship continues during a notice period and the employer continues the same salary and specified benefits. After the first 90 days, the employee need not provide services and may pursue nonwork activities; outside work requires the employer’s permission.

If garden leave includes a nonworking period, a related covered noncompete must be reduced day for day by that time. That detail should be addressed before the resignation letter arrives, not after.

The injunction language changes the opening move

Under Florida’s traditional restrictive-covenant statute, section 542.335, the party seeking enforcement must plead and prove a legitimate business interest and show that the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect it. The CHOICE Act uses a different structure for agreements that satisfy its definition and formalities.

Sections 542.44 and 542.45 direct a court via mandatory language, i.e. “must” preliminarily enjoin the covered employee, and potentially the business hiring that person, when a covered employer applies for enforcement. To modify or dissolve that injunction, the employee or hiring business must establish one of the statute’s specified grounds by clear and convincing evidence based on nonconfidential information.

That can make the first days of a dispute unusually important. The former employer may be evaluating emergency relief. The executive may be deciding what can be said without using protected information. The hiring company may suddenly have its own exposure and its own burden.

Older Florida case law still matters, but for a different track

If an agreement does not qualify as a covered CHOICE Act agreement, section 542.335 still governs. Florida’s Supreme Court explained in White v. Mederi Caretenders that identifying a legitimate business interest is a fact-specific, industry-specific inquiry; ordinary competition alone is not the point. More recently, Day v. Hydrologic Distribution Company affirmed a temporary injunction where the record supported protectable interests in customer relationships, confidential information, employee training and retention, and nonpublic business data.

Those decisions interpret section 542.335, not the new CHOICE Act provisions. As of September 15, 2026, our review did not locate a reported Florida appellate decision interpreting sections 542.44 or 542.45. That makes careful statutory analysis especially important.

Before the exit becomes a lawsuit

For the departing executive: locate every employment, equity, confidentiality, nonsolicitation, noncompete, and garden-leave document before accepting a competing role. Do not download files, forward emails, or assume personal devices are outside the preservation picture.

For the former employer: identify the actual business interest at risk, confirm which statute applies, preserve access logs and communications, and decide whether the practical objective is protection, a negotiated transition, or litigation.

For the hiring company: review the candidate’s restrictions before announcing the hire. A title change or carefully worded job description may not solve a contract problem, and under the CHOICE Act the new employer can be drawn directly into the injunction request.

The bottom line

A Florida executive departure can now trigger two very different noncompete analyses. One turns on the familiar section 542.335 framework. The other may place a qualifying agreement on the CHOICE Act’s more aggressive track.

The contract, compensation, work location, confidential-information record, timing, and next role all matter. Review them before the move becomes public and positions harden.

MB Law Group advises businesses, executives, and professionals in Florida and New York on commercial disputes, contract strategy, and restrictive-covenant issues. Contact MB Law Group to discuss a planned departure, a new hire, or an enforcement dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Florida’s CHOICE Act apply to every noncompete?

No. It applies only to agreements and workers that meet the Act’s definitions and formal requirements. A restrictive covenant outside those definitions is governed by section 542.335.

Can a Florida noncompete really last four years?

A covered noncompete under the CHOICE Act may run for up to four years. That does not mean every Florida employee can be bound for four years or that every document qualifies under the Act.

What is garden leave under Florida law?

A covered garden-leave agreement uses an advance notice period during which the employment relationship continues and the employer pays the same salary and specified benefits. The statutory notice period may last up to four years, subject to detailed requirements.

Can the new employer be named in the case?

Yes. The CHOICE Act permits a covered employer to seek preliminary injunctive relief against a business or person engaging the covered employee during the restricted period.

Has a Florida appellate court interpreted the CHOICE Act yet?

Our research current through September 15, 2026 did not locate a reported Florida appellate decision interpreting sections 542.44 or 542.45. Existing Florida noncompete cases remain useful for section 542.335, but they do not resolve every question under the new Act.

What should be reviewed before an executive changes jobs?

Review the signed agreements, compensation threshold, primary work location, choice-of-law clause, access to confidential information and customer relationships, proposed duties, and any garden-leave terms. The analysis is fact-specific.

Attorney Advertising. This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its facts and governing law.