Socko v. Mid-Atlantic: Restore the Supremacy of Statutory Text

At first glance, Socko v. Mid-Atlantic appears to be a simple ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the enforceability of non- compete provisions in employment agreements. The court ruled that a non- compete agreement, entered into between employer and employee after employment began, was unenforceable. While this is arguably a sensible policy decision meant to keep employers from imposing coercive agreements on existing employees, the court made this decision in opposition to a clear Pennsylvania statute. The Uniform Written Obligations Act is a Pennsylvania statute stating that no written agreement can be found invalid or unenforceable due to lack of consideration if the signor expresses an intent to be legally bound. The court spends a significant portion of its majority opinion trying to avoid this statute, but the clear application of the statutory text requires the opposite outcome. No matter what the issue or desired policy outcome, judges need to properly interpret statutes, regardless of their policy preferences, and let the lawmakers make law.