National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc.

**What Happened** This case involved two staffing companies - National Employment Service Corp. and Olsten Staffing Service. National sued Olsten, claiming that Olsten violated a contract between them and wrongfully interfered with National's employment agreements with workers. The dispute centered around a restrictive covenant (a type of contract clause that limits what someone can do) and whether Olsten improperly disrupted National's relationships with its employees. **What the Court Decided** An appeals court ruled in favor of Olsten Staffing Service. The court found that the restrictive covenant National was trying to enforce was unenforceable, meaning it couldn't be legally upheld. The court also determined that Olsten did not wrongfully interfere with National's employment contracts. As a result, the appeals court overturned the lower court's decision and reversed all damage awards that had been given to National. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is significant because it shows courts will strike down restrictive contract clauses that are unenforceable. When staffing companies or other employers include overly broad or unreasonable restrictions in contracts, workers may have legal protection. The decision also demonstrates that competition between staffing agencies for workers can be legitimate business practice.