TRO Against a Former Employee in Texas

By Darrell W. Cook · Last updated July 24, 2026

A key employee resigns. Within days, the employee is at a competitor. The company starts hearing from customers that the former employee is soliciting their business. Documents may have been downloaded before departure. Customer lists and pricing information may have walked out the door. The business needs to act fast.

A TRO and temporary injunction against a former employee is one of the most common forms of emergency business litigation. The work is demanding, on the law and on the procedure both. But done right it locks in protection within days while the larger case develops behind it. What follows is how that relief gets built and won.

When TROs apply

Common underlying bases for TROs against former employees:

Non-compete enforcement. When the employee is subject to an enforceable non-compete agreement and is working in violation. See Non-Compete Agreements in Texas.

Non-solicitation enforcement. When the employee is solicting customers, vendors, or other employees in violation of contractual restrictions. See Non-Solicitation Agreements.

Trade secret misappropriation. When the employee took or is using confidential business information. See Trade Secret Misappropriation under TUTSA and Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

Tortious interference. When the employee is interfering with customer relationships or employee relationships.

Conversion or theft. When the employee took specific company property, physical or intellectual.

Breach of fiduciary duty. For employees with elevated duties (officers, key management) who breached duties before or after departure.

Breach of employment agreement. Beyond restrictive covenants, specific contractual obligations may support relief.

Cases often combine multiple theories. The combined framework produces broader relief than any single theory alone.

The FTC non-compete update

A significant development: the FTC’s 2024 non-compete ban was vacated in Ryan, LLC v. FTC (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024). The FTC abandoned its appeal in September 2025, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on September 8,

1. The FTC formally acceded to vacatur on February 12, 2026.

The federal rule never took effect. Texas non-compete enforcement proceeds under Texas Business and Commerce Code section 15.50 and related case law as it has since 1995 (when the statute was enacted in its current form).

The Texas framework requires:

• Non-compete must be ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement.
• The agreement must contain reasonable limitations as to time, geographic area, and scope of activity to be restrained.
• The limitations must not impose a greater restraint than necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.

Courts can reform overbroad non-competes under section 15.51 to make them enforceable on reasonable terms.

The substantive showing

Texas temporary injunctive relief requires:

Probable right to relief on the merits. Substantive showing that the employer is likely to succeed on the underlying claims.

For non-compete claims, this means showing:

• An enforceable agreement under section 15.50.
• The employee’s breach.
• The employer’s legitimate business interests.

For trade secret claims, this means showing:

• The information qualifies as a trade secret under TUTSA or DTSA.
• Misappropriation occurred.
• Continuing risk of disclosure or use.

For customer interference claims, this means showing:

• Customer relationships at risk.
• Improper interference activity.

Probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. Specific showing of harm. Common forms:

• Lost customers.
• Disclosed trade secrets.
• Competitive harm not measurable in damages.
• Erosion of goodwill.

No adequate remedy at law. Why damages would not suffice. Trade secret cases typically satisfy this through the inherent inadequacy of damages for confidential information; customer cases through the relational nature of the harm.

Balance of equities. Comparing the harm to the employer if relief is denied against the harm to the employee if relief is granted.

Procedural mechanics

Investigation phase. Before filing, investigation develops the evidentiary record. Forensic review of employee electronic activity, customer communications, witness interviews. The investigation should be substantial enough to support the substantive showing.

Pre-suit demand. Sometimes used to position the case and document the basis. Cease-and-desist letters may trigger settlement discussions or develop the record on employee conduct.

TRO filing. Verified petition asserting the underlying claims, application for TRO with detailed factual showing, proposed order specifying the conduct restrained, and required bond.

Ex parte vs. notice. Texas TROs can issue ex parte when irreparable injury would result before notice can be given. Most Texas judges prefer brief notice when feasible.

Bond requirements. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 684 requires bond. Common amounts in employee cases run from $5,000 to $50,000 depending on the case.

Temporary injunction hearing. Within 14 days of TRO. Evidentiary hearing typically lasting hours to a full day.

Temporary injunction order. If granted, remains in effect until final judgment or modification.

Typical scope of relief

Texas TROs and temporary injunctions against former employees typically restrain:

Employment with specific competitors in violation of non-compete provisions.

Solicitation of identified customers, vendors, or employees of the former employer.

Use or disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets.

Continued retention of employer property including electronic materials.

Specific competitive activities in violation of contractual restrictions.

Specific communications that interfere with employer relationships.

The scope must be specific enough to be enforceable but broad enough to provide real protection. Orders that are too narrow miss conduct that the relief was meant to address; orders that are too broad face appellate vulnerability.

Practical considerations

Move quickly. Former-employee cases age badly. The sooner relief is sought, the better the showing on irreparable injury and the more meaningful the protection.

Document the underlying conduct. Forensic IT review, customer communications, witness statements all develop the record before filing.

Coordinate with the new employer. New-employer cases sometimes resolve through cooperation with the new employer rather than confrontation. Some new employers will require the former employee to cease problematic conduct rather than face liability.

Anticipate the defenses. Common employee defenses include unreasonableness of restrictions, no protectable business interest, public policy challenges, and specific factual defenses.

Address the public records issue. TROs and temporary injunctions become public records. Sometimes employers prefer to attempt resolution before filing.

Filing before the trail goes cold

We move in hours and days, not weeks, because departing- employee cases age badly and the injury showing weakens with every week that passes. We develop the record before filing, forensic IT review, witness interviews, customer communications, so the petition rests on evidence rather than suspicion. We combine the theories, non-compete, trade secret, customer interference, where they reach further together than any one does alone. And we defend these applications with the same command of the framework.

The single best predictor of a strong order is how fast the employer called. Early enough, the evidence is fresh and the harm is plainly imminent; late, both arguments erode.