The number of employers who require their employees to sign a Non-Compete Agreements keeps increasing each year after a higher than ever amount of Non-Compete litigation cases.
Companies grow weary of employers who leave for other jobs and take their business's trade secrets, business relationships, and corporate data along with them to their new company.
Nowadays it would be hard to find a company that doesn't require its employees to sign a non-compete.
If you've been stifled by a non-compete agreement that you feel wasn't legal, check out these 3 non-compete litigation points:
- Is the non-compete clause too broadly drawn? The clause should be narrow enough to protect the employer's business interests. It shouldn't protect anything else but the narrow business interest. Therefore, it needs to be specific with time, function, and geographic restrictions.
- Does it stifle its employee's ability to earn a living? Does the non-compete extend too far and harm the employee's livelihood? A non-compete that places a heavy burden on the employee's ability to purse a living will most likely be unenforceable in a court of law.
- Does it harm public policy?
If the non-compete imposes too restrictive of rules that go against public policy then it may be unenforceable. For example, a non-compete cannot require an employee to abandon their trade or field of work or to relocate far away to find new work.
If your non-compete agreement does any of the above, then you may want to consult with a business litigation attorney to discuss your next steps. If you have any questions, send us a message.