# Maintenance Specialties, Inc. v. Gottus

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 25, 1974 · 455 Pa. 327

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696706

## Case

- **Full name:** Maintenance Specialties, Inc., Appellant, v. Gottus
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 25, 1974
- **Citations:** 455 Pa. 327; 314 A.2d 279; 1974 Pa. LEXIS 633
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pomeroy
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696706

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a promise to be illusory where the company's obligation was voidable if, in the sole discretion of the company, an employee neglected or took action that was detrimental to the company's interests
- explaining necessity for additional consideration for restrictive covenants not to compete

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy:
I join in the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice, but add this additional word.
As a general proposition, the assertion in Mr. Justice Manderino’S dissenting opinion that either party may insist upon a change in the terms of employment as a condition for continuing an at-will employment relationship, and that the continued employment is the consideration supporting any such change, is unarguable. Nevertheless, as Mr. Chief Justice Jones points out in his concurring opinion, our courts have consistently held that the continuation of an at-will employment relationship is not sufficient consideration to support a covenant not to compete after the employment has terminated. I believe that sound policy supports this exception to the general rule even if strict logic does not. Most of the burdens which might be imposed on an employee in return for continued employment, such as a decrease in compensation or an increase in hours or duties, are conditions which terminate when the employment relationship itself comes to an end. An employee who finds them too onerous can immediately unburden himself by quitting his job. A covenant not to compete, however, may hinder a man’s ability to earn a living long after he has left the employment to which the covenant was ancillary. An employee who has an economic stake, or even an emotional stake, in the continuation of an existing at-will employment arrangement may find it difficult indeed not to accept *337 a covenant not to compete when his employer demands it. I am reluctant, therefore, to discard the rule, which our cases have clearly established, that more is required to support a covenant of this sort than just the uncertain prospect of continued employment at the employer’s will.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696706. Public record. Not legal advice.