Court decision highlights why HR must show real harm to enforce non-compete agreements
A*Med’s court fight over a former employee’s alleged breach of confidentiality and non-compete agreements ended with no damages and no permanent injunction.
On October 30, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed a trial court’s decision in the dispute between A*Med Management, Inc. and its former employee, Eutiva Thomas. The case highlights the challenges employers face in enforcing post-employment restrictions and the importance of evidence when seeking legal remedies.
A*Med, a home healthcare services provider, hired Thomas in 2010. In 2019, Thomas signed a confidentiality agreement that required her not to disclose confidential information, mainly referral sources, during and after her employment. After Thomas resigned and joined Providence Home Health Services, Inc., A*Med filed suit, alleging that she breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements and misappropriated trade secrets. The company sought over $1 million in damages and both temporary and permanent injunctions.
A*Med initially obtained a temporary injunction, which was upheld on appeal. Three years later, the case went to trial. The jury found that Thomas failed to comply with the confidentiality agreement and misappropriated trade secrets. However, the jury awarded A*Med zero dollars in damages. The jury did award A*Med $310,107 in attorney’s fees, but the trial court denied the company’s requests for a permanent injunction and attorneys’ fees.
After the verdict, A*Med moved for entry of judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing that Thomas’s obligations to protect confidential information were ongoing. Thomas opposed, stating that any harm to A*Med occurred in 2019 and had ceased, with no evidence of imminent or irreparable injury. The trial court denied A*Med’s motions, stating that A*Med would take nothing from Thomas and Thomas would take nothing from A*Med.
A*Med appealed, contending that the trial court should have granted a permanent injunction based on the jury’s findings. The appellate court, however, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that A*Med did not present evidence of imminent harm or irreparable injury after the events that formed the basis of the suit. Testimony from A*Med’s owner indicated that any harm was limited to a six-month period in 2019, and there was no evidence that Thomas was disclosing or threatening to disclose trade secrets in 2022.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a permanent injunction. The decision underscores that, even when a jury finds a breach of confidentiality or misappropriation of trade secrets, employers must show ongoing risk or harm to obtain permanent injunctive relief.
The case serves as a reminder that courts require clear, current evidence of harm—not just a past breach—when enforcing post-employment restrictions. Agreements alone are not enough; employers must be prepared to demonstrate why continued legal protection is necessary.
