Sprague Electric Co. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corp.

**What Happened:** This 1945 case involved a dispute between two electrical companies, Sprague Electric and Cornell-Dubilier Electric. Cornell-Dubilier had sued Sprague in Massachusetts state court for unfair competition, likely related to an employee who left Cornell-Dubilier to work for Sprague. The case centered around a non-compete agreement that restricted where the employee could work after leaving Cornell-Dubilier. **What the Court Decided:** The federal court ruled in favor of Sprague Electric. The judge found that Cornell-Dubilier's non-compete agreement was unenforceable because it was too broad and unreasonably restricted workers' ability to find employment. Under New Jersey law, the agreement went too far in limiting where the employee could work. The court blocked Cornell-Dubilier from seeking injunctions (court orders) to enforce this overly restrictive contract. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling demonstrates that courts will protect workers from unreasonable non-compete agreements. Even in 1945, judges recognized that employers cannot use overly broad contracts to prevent employees from finding new jobs. When non-compete clauses are too restrictive, courts will refuse to enforce them, preserving workers' rights to earn a living in their chosen field.