3. Dezember 2020
But, as with other company-specific laws, such as the Ban the Box Act, it is often difficult to determine where the boundary between enforceable and non-competition is unreasonable. National laws, time and geographic constraints, the number of employees and the type of industry are all things that must be taken into account in deciding whether a non-competition agreement is applicable or necessary. For example, in Florida, the law supports non-competitions, so the facts of your situation, and the state in which you live determine where the agreement is applied against you. Scott Addison provides treatment services to a wide range of clients, including health care providers, home builders, contractors, entrepreneurs, financial institutions and individuals. He is also a certified mediator of the Supreme Court, which helps opposing parties resolve their disputes. Scott is Chief Technology Officer at Lincoln Derr and is constantly looking for ways to promote and promote technology in the workplace and in the legal profession. Continue on the field of time and territory. The fundamental questions that the courts judge when considering the adequacy of time and territory is whether the restriction reasonably protects the employer`s activities. If the limit is 500 miles, that is clearly not reasonable.
If the 10-year limit is also unreasonable. If the restriction applies for 2 years and within 15 miles of the company, but the Confederation applies to „any parent company, department, subsidiary, subsidiary, predecessor, successor or agent of the employer,“ then the lawyers who worked on the competition bans have rightly invalidated it for their client. Several other Texas Supreme Court cases have improved the applicability of competition agreements that culminated in 2011 in the Marsh USA case. In it, the court found that the employer`s thinking should not „raise“ the need to limit competition in exchange for the employee`s promise not to compete. On the contrary, the review must be „proportionate“ to the need to limit competition. Considerations such as confidential information, trade secrets and the need to protect the value may, in the right case, meet this standard. Does the employer have a legitimate interest that it protects by the non-compete agreement? A bonus nugget of interest in this area is that the courts are not blue non-compete clause pencils in the individual context of employment. This means that a court will not rewrite an inapplicable clause to make it applicable. For example, in one of the previous scenarios, the court would not remove „any parent company, department, subsidiary, subsidiary, predecessor, consecutive successor or agent“ if that clause is the only party to obstruct an otherwise applicable non-competition clause.
The non-competition clause is applicable, or not, as written. Agreements between companies are treated differently, so don`t get confused if someone tells you that the court will find a way to solve the problems.