A "Property Use Restriction" in an employment context is a clause that limits how an employee may use company property, facilities, equipment, or intellectual property during and potentially after employment. Common examples include restrictions on using company computers for personal purposes, prohibitions on removing company equipment from premises, limitations on using company intellectual property or confidential information for personal projects, and restrictions on using company facilities for outside business activities. The clause may also extend to post-employment restrictions, such as preventing former employees from using company-developed tools, methodologies, or materials in their next job. This matters because it protects the employer's assets, prevents conflicts of interest, maintains security and compliance, and preserves the value of proprietary systems and information. However, overly broad restrictions can be unenforceable and may create employee relations problems.
The practical importance lies in asset protection and risk management. Without clear use restrictions, employees may inadvertently (or intentionally) expose company systems to security risks, create liability through unauthorized personal use, or divert company resources to competing interests. The clause also serves a compliance function—many regulated industries require documented policies limiting personal use of company systems to maintain data security certifications and regulatory compliance. However, courts and regulators increasingly scrutinize restrictions that are unreasonably broad, particularly post-employment restrictions that prevent employees from using general skills or knowledge they developed.
Draft use restrictions that are specific, reasonable, and clearly tied to legitimate business interests such as security, compliance, asset protection, or conflict of interest prevention. Distinguish between absolute prohibitions (e.g., no removal of equipment from premises, no use of company systems for illegal activity) and permitted personal use with limitations (e.g., incidental personal email use is permitted but not for business purposes or solicitation). Avoid overly broad post-employment restrictions—courts will likely strike down clauses that prevent employees from using general knowledge, skills, or non-proprietary methodologies they developed. Instead, focus on protecting genuinely proprietary assets through trade secret agreements and non-compete clauses if legally permissible in your jurisdiction. Ensure the policy is communicated clearly to all employees, consistently enforced, and balanced with reasonable expectations of privacy (particularly regarding personal communications). Include specific consequences for violations and a process for employees to request exceptions or clarification. Review the clause regularly to ensure it remains proportionate to actual business risks and complies with evolving employment law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this clause mean in simple terms?
A "Property Use Restriction" in an employment context is a clause that limits how an employee may use company property, facilities, equipment, or intellectual property during and potentially after employment. Common examples include restrictions on using company computers for personal purposes, prohibitions on removing company equipment from premises, limitations on using company intellectual property or confidential information for personal projects, and restrictions on using company facilities for outside business activities.
Why should I care about this clause?
The clause may also extend to post-employment restrictions, such as preventing former employees from using company-developed tools, methodologies, or materials in their next job. This matters because it protects the employer's assets, prevents conflicts of interest, maintains security and compliance, and preserves the value of proprietary systems and information.
What are my options?
However, overly broad restrictions can be unenforceable and may create employee relations problems. The practical importance lies in asset protection and risk management.
How does this affect small businesses?
Without clear use restrictions, employees may inadvertently (or intentionally) expose company systems to security risks, create liability through unauthorized personal use, or divert company resources to competing interests. The clause also serves a compliance function—many regulated industries require documented policies limiting personal use of company systems to maintain data security certifications and regulatory compliance.