Non-compete obligations have historically been a constitutional territory, and states have developed a different approach to their applicability. For example, North Carolina courts will not enforce a non-compete obligation unless it forms part of a written employment contract based on valuable consideration designed to protect an employer`s legitimate business interests and appropriate both temporally and territorially. In this context, most States agree that two of the most important factors to consider are the geographical scope and duration of the restriction. Over time, courts across the country have largely agreed that the most restrictive (and enforceable) non-compete obligation is 50 miles and two years after dismissal. An employer can receive more than two years of coverage, but should live with a geographic scope of less than 50 miles. or more than 50 miles, but less than two years. Before drafting or signing a non-compete agreement, familiarize yourself with the applicable laws of the state – both those where the work will take place and those where the employer has its registered office. For example, if they are not related to the sale of a business, non-compete obligations are not legal in California. review the current status of non-compete obligations and the legal analysis of their enforceability; For which positions and employees do you really need a non-competition clause to protect your company`s trade secrets, goodwill and confidential information (given that non-compete obligations with low-wage workers, employees who do not have access to trade secrets, and employees who are unlikely to attract customers to a competitor are now more easily audited)? Non-compete obligations must be signed by all parties and limit the restriction to a reasonable period, often two years.
However, the general restrictions of this type of contract are often unenforceable. Some non-compete obligations are unnecessary because they are not upheld by the court, while others effectively protect the employer`s interests and help retain valuable employees. Until recently, non-compete obligations and other employer practices that impacted workers` mobility and wages were a relatively minor priority for U.S. antitrust authorities. None. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice`s (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and various attorneys general have paid particular attention to competition in labor markets. Three years ago, the Justice Department announced a significant change in enforcement policy, warning companies and executives that in the future it would challenge and even prosecute “naked” no-poaching and wage agreements between competing employers. [1] Many attorneys general have been increasingly aggressive in this area, advocating for stronger federal action and launching their own government action against certain applications of non-compete clauses and non-poaching agreements. Federal legislation has been proposed — and has the support of both parties — regarding the use of non-competition clauses.
The Plaintiffs` Bar Association has become increasingly active in challenging the application of the Non-Competition Act and in bringing class action lawsuits against employers who enter into alleged no-poaching agreements. And just this month, the FTC held a workshop to review an FTC rule that would significantly restrict or perhaps even eliminate the use of workplace non-compete obligations in employment contracts or stand-alone restrictive covenant agreements. Even in states where non-compete obligations are frequently enforced, the court limits restrictions to what the employer can prove appropriate. Some states will not amend the agreement, but will simply declare it invalid. While the bill remains pending before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senators Murphy and Young – who are joined by seven other senators – have been pushing for “FTC measures” that would restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. In a letter to the FTC`s five commissioners, the bipartisan group wrote that “the widespread application of non-compete obligations in the U.S. economy is anti-competitive and workers are often bound by these clauses by fraudulent practices,” adding that the “FTC has a duty to reduce or eliminate anti-competitive and deceptive acts.” In early January, the FTC held a public workshop to determine whether the FTC should adopt a rule to restrict the use of non-compete obligations in employer-employee employment contracts. Two of the FTC`s five commissioners – Rebecca Slaughter and Noah Phillips – made prepared remarks.
Commissioner Slaughter, a Democratic representative of the FTC, called on the FTC to use its rule-making power to restrict “unjustified and anti-competitive non-compete obligations” in employment contracts. “The workshop we are hosting today is a valuable mechanism for the FTC to gather information and learn more about the impact of non-compete obligations on businesses, workers and the economy,” Slaughter said. “But gathering information should not be the end of this exercise; We should also take action,” she said, citing efforts by state and federal lawmakers and proposals to limit anti-competitive use and enforcement. Non-compete clauses are blunt instruments that grossly protect the interests of employers and weigh on national productivity by forcing insured workers to remain inactive for long periods of time or to leave industries in which they have fully refined their skills. States, whether by law or case law, generally follow the principle that restrictions imposed on employees should not be greater than necessary to protect the employer`s legitimate business interests, sometimes referred to as “protectable interests.” Although there are few clear rules, States generally assess whether the restrictions contained in a non-compete obligation are appropriate in terms of duration and scope, although the interpretation of what constitutes “adequacy” varies from country to country. In general, non-compete obligations entered into in the context of a transaction are subject to much less scrutiny than those that arise in the context of employment. Timeliness is usually determined by assessing the clear facts of each case. A handful of states, including Utah[11] and Massachusetts[12], have passed laws that set reasonable time limits.
In addition, other states such as Florida [13], Georgia [14] and Washington[15] should identify reasonable deadlines of between six months and two years. As regards the territorial scope of a non-compete obligation, adequacy is generally determined by the places where the undertaking operates. However, some states have imposed restrictions on geographic location and limited it to the location of the employee`s activities or the specific geographic areas for which the employee was responsible. Overall, the enforceability of a non-compete obligation ultimately depends on the applicable case-law and the specific facts of the case. In addition to restricting where employees can work after leaving the company, non-compete obligations also regulate the protection of the company`s trade secrets. This may include sales strategies, product information, and customer lists. Non-compete obligations generally impose restrictions that prevent workers from holding employment or at least providing services to competitors for a certain period of time and/or in a particular geographical area. These types of clauses are usually found in or are ancillary to employment contracts or as part of a contract with a service provider. In addition, non-compete obligations may be part of a sale or business transaction and may be used to prevent the seller of a company from competing with the buyer for a period after the sale is concluded. Non-compete obligations can be used to protect valuable corporate assets such as trade secrets, intellectual property, proprietary information and goodwill.
.