BATON ROUGE, La. – A Louisiana veterinarian is suing his Ohio-based employer arguing an employment agreement he was instructed to sign includes a non-compete provision that is “invalid and unenforceable.”
Plaintiff Jon M. Fletcher, a resident of East Baton Rouge Parish, filed his lawsuit January 27 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Fletcher, who is a board-certified veterinary internal medicine specialist, contends the agreement provided him by defendant MedVet Associates LLC is invalid under Louisiana law due to its lack of a geographic restriction.
“Louisiana law requires that agreements regarding non-competition and/or the non-solicitation of customers specify the parishes, municipalities, and/or parts thereof to which they apply,” the 27-page complaint states.
Fletcher joined MedVet, based in Columbus, Ohio, in October 2019 in a non-clinical position as its director of post-graduate education. In that capacity, he worked with hospital leaders, doctors, and other trainees in training programs across the group of veterinary ER and specialty hospitals run by MedVet.
The entire time that Fletcher worked for MedVet he worked from his home in East Baton Rouge Parish.
After giving advance notice of his resignation effective Jan. 30, 2026, MedVet asked Fletcher to sign a new agreement containing revised non-compete and non-solicitation covenants, which Fletcher refused to sign.
On Jan. 26, MedVet, through its outside lawyers in Columbus, sent Fletcher a letter threatening legal action under the existing employment agreement if he would not sign the revised agreement.
Then, Fletcher alleges MedVet, in an attempt to interfere with his new employment, copied its letter to Fletcher to Mission Pet Health – his new employer.
The demand letter, he alleges, quoted the non-compete provision of the agreement, and counsel specifically emphasized that “the applicable geographic area is North America.”
“Louisiana has a strong public policy prohibiting employment agreements that select another state’s law and/or venue to cover/handle disputes with Louisiana residents and prohibiting agreements in restraint of trade unless they meet specific legal requirements,” his complaint states.
According to the filing, Louisiana law – specifically La. R.S. 23:921 – expressly prohibits choice of law and choice of venue clauses in any employment contract. It also prohibits any attempt “to enforce either a choice of forum or choice of law clause in any civil or administrative action involving an employee.”
Fletcher states he has “no intention to ever execute” the proposed addendum and intends to proceed with his new employment at Mission Pet Health after Jan. 30.
He seeks to have the federal court declare unenforceable the Ohio choice of law and choice of forum provisions in the employment agreement, in addition to the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants.
He also seeks the court to enjoin MedVet from trying to “circumvent” the court’s jurisdiction by attempting to bring competing litigation in Ohio or elsewhere.
Baton Rouge firm Kean Miller LLP is representing Fletcher in the suit.
