On September $4,2013,$ the trial court issued a temporary restraining order that enjoined defendant and her business from soliciting any of plaintiff's clients pending an evidentiary hearing on September $6,2013.$

At the hearing, defendant admitted that she signed a copy of the employee handbook and that she had agreed to be bound by it$,$ but she denied signing an employment or noncompetition agreement. Defendant also acknowledged that she still was providing billing services for plaintiff's former client and his medical group, but she denied that she was in violation of the terms of her employment with plaintiff. Upon the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that defendant signed, and was bound by$,$ both the employee handbook and the employment agreement. Additionally, the trial court found that the terms of those documents likely restricted defendant's actions and, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction.

On October $7,2013,$ the trial court held a hearing on defendant's objections to a proposed order submitted by plaintiff pertaining to the interim injunction. In particular, defendant challenged the noncompetition provisions, arguing that they were unreasonable and unenforceable under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act $("$MARA$"),$ MCL $445\mathrm{.}771$ et seq. Defendant asked the court to determine the reasonableness of the ban in the employee handbook against soliciting plaintiff's past and present clients. The trial court declined to rule on the merits of that objection, noting its finding that defendant had signed the handbook herself, and enforced the ban without any limitationston duration or geographical scope. Additionally, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiff interim injunctive relief that prohibited defendant from obtaining employment from any of plaintiff's current or former clients, and from engaging in any conduct within a $50-$mile radius of plaintiff's place of business that was competitive with a service provided by plaintiff.

The trial court later issued a judgment and permanent injunction, ordering defendant to pay damages and enjoining defendant from $(1)$ "engaging in any conduct $...$ competitive with a service provided by Plaintiff $...$ within $50$ miles of Plaintiff's principal place of business $..$ for a period of one year" from the entry of the September $10,2013$ interim order; and $(2)$ "from obtaining employment, either directly or indirectly, from any current or previously contracted client of $[$plaintiff$],"$ regardless of geographic distance or duration.

II$.$ REASONABLENESS OF THE NONCOMPETITION PROVISION IN THE EMPLOYEE MANUAL

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the trial court's finding that she signed and agreed to be bound by both the employee manual and the employment agreement. Accordingly, defendant does not dispute that she may be prohibited from engaging in work that is competitive with any service provided by plaintiff for a period of $12$ months within $50$ miles of plaintiff's Flint location. Rather, she argues that the trial court erred in enforcing the noncompetition provision in the employee handbook as written without first determining whether it was reasonable. Additionally, she contends that the employee handbook provision, which prohibited her from performing any work for any of plaintiff's past or current clients, is unreasonable to the extent that its duration and geographic reach is unlimited. We agree that the provision is unreasonable.

$-3.$