See Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs., 515 So.2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fla.App. 3d Dist. 1987). Accord Mathieu v. Old Town Flower Shops Inc., 585 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla.App. 4th Dist. 1991); Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas, 537 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla.App. 2d Dist. 1988); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486, 491 n. 3 (Fla.App. 3d Dist. 1986). Despite the authority set out above, Mr. Ranger asserts that a recent amendment to the Florida statute governing noncompete covenants requires MedX to demonstrate that he has caused it specific, ascertainable harm in order for the permanent injunction to extend beyond the contractual period.
Moreover, if the trial court finds the former employee used a specific trade secret in his new employment, then there is a presumption of irreparable injury. The court, then, must determine the reasonableness of the non-compete agreement's time and space restrictions and the employee's non-compete contract may be enforced by injunction. See Sun Elastic Corp., 603 So.2d at 518; Mathieu v. Old Town Flower Shops Inc., 585 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (the maximum period non-compete covenants should be enforced against low-level employees is three years). However, if the court determines that no trade secrets are involved, then it must engage in the balancing test of the 1990 statutory amendment.