Kentucky law has long recognized an employee's "right to take with him all the skill he has acquired" when moving between employers. Birn v. Runion , 310 Ky. 805, 222 S.W.2d 657, 659 (1949) (quoting Garst v. Scott , 114 Kan. 676, 220 P. 277, 278 (1923) ). Kentucky's highest court has held that "[a]ll [of an employee's] knowledge, skill and information, except trade secrets, become a part of his equipment for the transaction of any business in which he may engage, just the same as any part of the skill, knowledge, information or education that was received by him before entering upon the employment."

Upon a review of the record in the present case, this Court is convinced that the ties Stewart had to the management of Kentucky Paving Company placed him in a position of trust and permitted him access to confidential corporate information. It is also worthy of note that the salesman in Aero Drapery was involved only in the organization of a competing business whereas Stewart organized and actively solicited contracts through his father-in-law, James Keene. Appellant cites Progress Laundry Company v. Hamilton, 208 Ky. 348, 270 S.W. 834 (1925) and Birn v. Runion, 310 Ky. 805, 222 S.W.2d 657 (1949) for the contention that Stewart did not breach any obligation to Kentucky Paving Company by utilizing the leads to promote his own business. Both cases are distinguishable in that the employee had resigned prior to the solicitation of clients for a competing business.