Judge Denied Extension of Marsh Employee Restrictions
A federal judge ruled that Marsh cannot extend non-solicitation periods for four former employees in New York.
Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Remote Work
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce non-solicitation agreements against former employees after they leave a company?
Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York rejected a request from Marsh to extend non-solicitation restrictions for four former employees by 265 days. The court determined that the company already received the full 12-month post-employment protection period it originally bargained for.
Why it matters
The ruling underscores the difficulty corporations face in extending restrictive covenants beyond their original terms without demonstrating ongoing, irreparable injury. It confirms that courts often prioritize established contract durations over attempts to recover time lost during active employment disputes.
Marsh sought an extension of non-solicitation restrictions for four former employees after 140 staff and 18 clients departed for Howden. The court maintained the expiration of these restrictions as of September 19, 2026.
The players
George Daniels
He is a judge in the Southern District of New York who presided over the litigation between Marsh and Howden.
Marsh
This is a professional services firm that is currently pursuing multiple legal cases against its competitor, Howden.
Howden
This is a global insurance intermediary headquartered in London that has been the destination for numerous former Marsh employees.
Michael Parrish
He is one of four former Marsh employees named as a defendant in the solicitation litigation.
Giselle Lugones
She is one of the four former Marsh employees named in the court's ruling regarding non-solicitation restrictions.
The details
The court found that most of the alleged solicitation took place while the four employees, including Michael Parrish, Giselle Lugones, Julie Layton, and Robert Lynn, were still actively employed by Marsh. While the injunction extension was denied, the court ruled that the defendants remain legally prohibited from misusing Marsh’s confidential information.
Timeline
July 21, 2025: Marsh employees began leaving the company for Howden.
September 2025: Judge Daniels granted an initial preliminary injunction in the case.
September 19, 2026: The 12-month post-employment non-solicitation restriction period expired.
September 22, 2026: Judge Daniels issued the ruling denying the extension request.
Market Landscape
This ruling follows the 12-month post-employment non-solicitation covenant as the primary standard for enforcing employee restrictions in this sector. It reflects a broader trend where courts strictly interpret contract terms rather than granting extensions to compensate for competitive turnover.
For employees in competitive sectors, this decision reinforces the importance of the specific timelines written into post-employment contracts. It suggests that companies will have limited success in retroactively extending these restrictions through the courts after a transition.
The takeaway
Companies should prioritize robust, enforceable contract terms from the outset rather than relying on judicial extensions after disputes arise. Former employees are reminded that while non-solicitation windows expire, the legal prohibition against misusing confidential data generally remains in effect.
Further reading
For more on the evolving rules regarding workforce mobility, visit the Remote Work section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Theinsurer.
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce non-solicitation agreements against former employees after they leave a company?
