Court Upholds Non-Compete Agreement for Connecticut Tax Preparation Firm Employee

by Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 07, 2024

Employment 

Summary: Hoffnagle v. Henderson, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 901

Ms. Nancy Henderson worked for Mr. John Hoffnagle as an accountant at the tax preparation business “Hoffnagle & Associates” in Bristol, CT from early 1995 to October 2001.  The parties executed an employment agreement on January 27, 1996, that dictated the rights and obligations of the parties and contained a non-compete clause that would become effective upon Ms. Henderson’s termination.

Mr. Hoffnagle gave Ms. Henderson a significant, but temporary raise as consideration for the provisions of the agreement.  The restrictive covenant prohibited Ms. Henderson from operating general bookkeeping, tax preparation, and tax filing business within five miles of the company’s office(s) for a period of five years.  Additionally, the agreement prohibited her from disclosing or using Hoffnagle’s client lists or other confidential information of past or present clients.

The Case

In 1997, Hoffnagle opened a second office in Terryville, CT and appointed Ms. Henderson to be the branch’s manager.  At this time, Mr. Hoffnagle began to prepare for retirement and officially separated the offices because they would be more lucrative to sell individually rather than as a two-office firm.  He transferred ownership of the Terryville office to ConnTax Corporation, a Chapter S corporation controlled by members of Mr. Hoffnagle’s family.

From January 2001 until her termination, Ms. Henderson was technically an employee of ConnTax and received all compensation and benefits from that company.  In October 2001, Mr. Hoffnagle sold the original Bristol office to an industry competitor.  Ms. Henderson and Mr. Hoffnagle discussed her purchasing the Terryville office but the deal ultimately fell through when they could not agree on a final price.  This prompted Ms. Henderson to terminate her employment and open her own business across the street from Hoffnagle’s Terryville location.

Mr. Hoffnagle sued Ms. Henderson and asked the court to enjoin her from continuing to operate her tax preparation business at its current location in clear violation of the non-compete agreement executed by the parties in 1997.  Ms. Henderson, however, contended that the agreement lacked consideration and was therefore not binding upon the parties.  She claimed that the temporary raise she received was not in connection with the restrictive covenant but was merely coincidental.

The Court’s Decision

The court rejected the assertion that the non-compete agreement and the raise were unrelated and concluded that the raise was indeed adequate consideration to make the agreement legally binding.  The court also concluded that the duration and geographical limitations were reasonable.  They were reasonable to protect Mr. Hoffnagle’s legitimate business interests and the limited scope of the geographical limitation did not unnecessarily restrict Ms. Henderson’s ability to make a living.  The court also noted that the consuming public would not be denied access to the services provided by the parties by enforcing the provisions of the non-compete agreement.

Ms. Henderson raised an interesting point, however, when she inquired about whether the court’s holding and enforcement of the non-compete agreement included “personal clients” to whom she provided tax preparation services outside of her role as an employee of Hoffnagle & Associates and later ConnTax.  The court concluded that she was not enjoined from continuing to service those “personal clients” because their inclusion on the list of prohibited clients would be unfair since those clients did not have an official relationship to any Hoffnagle business entity.


Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.

Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well. 

If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.