activities during one’s employment is reasonable and therefore enforceable. MacMillan’s argument that the scope of the non-solicitation provision is overbroad because it precludes MacMillan from soliciting PartyLite Consultants that were not within her direct chain (ie., Consultants as to which MacMillan presumably lacked any confidential information), is unpersuasive. From a legitimate business interest perspective, this Court sees no distinction between Consultants, whether they be in or out of MacMillan’s direct chain. Moreover, there is case law supporting, by analogy, PartyLite’s right to enforce this non-solicitation provision to preclude MacMillan from soliciting any PartyLite Consultant. See also Supinski v. Omni Healthcare, P.A., 853 So.2d 526, 530-31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); cf. Milner Voice and Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377
holding that the covenants clause prohibiting the employee from being employed  with any corporation  which competes with or otherwise engages in any business of the employer was overbroad because it prohibited the employee from working for a competitor in any capacity holding that emtala applies to any and all patients recognizing that employee would have to be the rainman to be able to retain recall and make use of information contained in documents with which he worked while employed by defendant where he did not take those documents with him when he left holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding that injunction prohibiting doctor from seeing any patients from medical practice that formerly employed him as provided for in covenant not to compete was not overbroad and should not have been limited to only those patients he treated while employed by practice