Kansas Court Lets Wealth Manager Keep Suing Former Executive over Noncompete Breach

Why It Matters

The decision gives employers a clear legal pathway to enforce non‑compete and settlement clauses, limiting the ability of former executives to evade contractual obligations via free‑speech arguments. It also signals that anti‑SLAPP statutes will not be a shortcut to dismiss legitimate employment litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Kansas appeals court affirms breach‑of‑contract claim over non‑compete
• Free‑speech defenses cannot override confidentiality and non‑disparagement clauses
• Anti‑SLAPP motions cannot block discovery in legitimate employment disputes
• Settlement non‑disparagement clauses can revive litigation years later
• Employers must draft robust non‑compete and settlement agreements

Pulse Analysis

The Kansas appellate ruling marks a pivotal moment for employers navigating non‑compete enforcement. By rejecting the defendants’ reliance on the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act, the court underscored that contractual obligations—especially confidentiality and non‑disparagement provisions—trump broad free‑speech claims. This clarification reduces uncertainty for HR leaders who must balance employee mobility with the protection of proprietary client relationships.

For corporate counsel, the decision highlights two practical imperatives. First, non‑compete and settlement agreements must be meticulously drafted, with explicit language that survives scrutiny under anti‑SLAPP statutes. Second, the inclusion of a non‑disparagement clause can provide a foothold for future claims if a former executive breaches the agreement, as demonstrated by Creative Planning’s renewed lawsuit three years after an initial settlement. Companies should therefore treat settlement clauses with the same rigor as the original employment contract.

Nationally, the ruling contributes to a growing body of case law that limits the reach of anti‑SLAPP protections in employment contexts. While many states have adopted similar statutes to shield public discourse, courts are increasingly drawing a line when the speech in question is tied to contractual disputes. Employers can leverage this trend to pursue legitimate claims without fear of procedural dismissal, but they must also stay vigilant about the evolving legal landscape to ensure their agreements remain enforceable across jurisdictions.