|
|
Return to Articles
and Legal Updates |
Introduction
The desire of employers to keep
their employees from competing with them has been a source of much
litigation. In a typical arrangement, the employer requires the
employee to sign an agreement that prevents the employee from engaging
in specified forms of competition with the employer for a certain
time period and in a specific geographic area. Courts usually will
enforce the non competition agreement if it strikes a reasonable
balance between protecting the interests of the employer and allowing
the employee enough leeway to earn a living.
Validity and
Enforcement
A challenge to the validity and
enforcement of an agreement often focuses on the reasonableness
of the geographic scope and the duration of the restrictions. Another
factor considered is the nature of the former employee's duties
and whether those duties increase or diminish the possibility of
competitive harm to the employer. An extensively trained employee
who has access to trade secrets or who has developed substantial
contacts with customers poses a greater competitive threat than
a worker who has few connections to the company's place in competitive
markets.
Blue Pencil
Rule
If it is determined that a non competition
agreement is too restrictive, some courts may take a flexible approach.
Under the "blue pencil" rule, a court can preserve acceptable parts
of the agreement and enforce offending provisions with appropriate
modifications. For example, a five-year ban on competition may be
enforced for only three years. Or, a five-state, no-competition
area may be reduced to the state where the employee worked.
At-Will Employees
Sometimes the legality of a non
competition agreement is before a court not because the employer
is enforcing it but because it fired an employee who refused to
sign the agreement. In that setting, the law generally favors the
employer's right to discharge an "at-will" employee for any reason
or for no reason at all. An at-will employee is one hired for an
indefinite term and not protected by contractual or statutory provisions
requiring that there be a good reason for termination. An employee
who balks at signing a non competition agreement may argue that
termination for that reason goes against a public policy that prohibits
unreasonable restraints on trade. On a case-by-case basis, many
states have carved out specific public policy exceptions to the
at-will rule, but the exceptions tend to be created in piecemeal
fashion and based on policies derived from state law.
Back
to top
|
|
Return to Articles
and Legal Updates |
DISCLAIMER:
This article has been prepared by Melissa C. Marsh for the
benefit of clients and friends. Although prepared by a professional,
this article should not be used as a substitute for legal
advice because your specific factual circumstances may differ,
the laws of your jurisdiction may differ, your specific
situation may require different advice, or the laws may
have changed. Readers should not act upon the information
contained in this article without first seeking the advice
of a local licensed and practicing attorney.
If you have questions
relating to this article, please call (323) 655-1002 or
email: mmarsh@yourlegalcorner.com.
|