Non Compete Agreement North Dakota? Trust The Answer

By Janet A Hendrick and Angela M Buchanan

For decades, non-compete clauses and other restrictive agreements have protected American companies from unfair competition by preventing departing employees from working for a direct competitor for a specific period of time and within a specific geographic area. Today, non-competition clauses are still a useful tool, but their effectiveness depends on whether the agreement is closely tailored to legitimate business interests and, since enforceability is governed by state law, whether the relevant case law allows employers to enforce the agreements.

Although most states allow the enforcement of reasonable non-compete clauses, there is an increasing trend to restrict or prohibit their use. In California, North Dakota, the District of Columbia and Oklahoma, non-compete obligations that are contrary to public policy are either totally or largely unenforceable. Other states, including Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Washington, have banned non-compete agreements for low-wage workers.

This year, non-competition clauses have encountered new obstacles in several jurisdictions. In May, Oregon passed legislation restricting the use of non-compete clauses so that they can only be enforced if the employee earns more than $100,533/year, the vesting period does not exceed 12 months, and the employer agrees in writing to provide the greater of (i) 50% of the employee’s compensation at the time of termination or (ii) $100,533 annually during the vesting period. Nevada passed Assembly Bill 47 in May, which significantly tightens Nevada’s restrictions on non-compete agreements. New Nevada law, effective October 1, 2021, invalidates non-compete obligations for hourly workers. Nevada law also prevents employers from preventing employees from working for a client if the employee did not recruit the clients for the previous employer, the client left the employer voluntarily, and the employee generally complies with the non-compete obligation. To add bite to the new law, it allows an employee who successfully challenges a non-compete clause to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. After Oregon and Nevada, Illinois passed legislation in June prohibiting non-compete agreements for employees who earn less than $75,000 a year and prohibition agreements restricting which customers an employee can call for employees earning less than $45,000 $/year. Both salary thresholds are raised annually. The Illinois governor is expected to sign the new ban bill into law, making the law effective on January 1, 2022.

Like these countries, the federal government has taken steps to restrict the use of non-compete clauses. In July, President Biden issued the “Promoting Competition in the American Economy Order,” calling on the Federal Trade Commission to “restrict the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly restrict worker mobility.” Although the regulation does not change current law, it is a clear sign that non-competition clauses will be subject to additional scrutiny and eventually may be restricted by federal law.

In light of the ongoing wave of non-compete reforms, employers, particularly those operating in multiple jurisdictions, should monitor developments in their jurisdictions and carefully consider choice of law and jurisdiction clauses for agreements. Phillips Murrah’s Labor & Employment attorneys have extensive experience in negotiating, drafting and litigating issues relating to employment contracts and restrictive agreements. If you would like more information, please contact the office.

Phillips Murrah employment and labor law attorneys continue to monitor developments to provide our clients with updated advice on new regulations affecting employers.

Janet A. Hendrick is a shareholder and a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

For more information on this alert and how it affects your business, please call 214.615.6391 or email me.

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

For a term used as often as “non-compete” I think the details of the agreement and the parameters are not well understood. One way I’m trying to help in this area is by offering a collection of articles called Oklahoma Non-Compete Agreements. Below is an index to the posts and watch the video above for a brief explanation of the series.

Over the past year, I have written several articles on non-compete obligations under Oklahoma law. Below is a collection of the links to each article and a snippet of the article. You can access the full articles from here and also bookmark this page to ensure you always have access to all the articles.

Is my non-compete obligation enforceable in Oklahoma?

The short answer is that if you are located in Oklahoma, the non-compete clause is not enforceable. With a few exceptions, Oklahoma law is clear that a person is permitted to work in his or her chosen business or industry, even if a piece of paper says otherwise. While competition is permitted, Oklahoma law prohibits a former employee from soliciting the former employer’s established customers.

Two scenarios in which a non-competition clause is enforceable

In an article a few months ago, I wrote about how Oklahoma law categorically invalidates non-compete agreements. Oklahoma has made a public policy decision that employees will not be barred from competing, with some exceptions. Below are the exceptions to the rule:

Non-compete clauses are still wrong in Oklahoma

I wrote a few months ago about how Oklahoma law prohibits non-compete agreements for former employees and addressed exceptions here. Yesterday, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reiterated that any agreement restricting a former employee’s ability to work in the same field as the former employer is void under Oklahoma law.

The top 10 mistakes in non-competition clauses

Non-competition clauses can help a company retain valuable employees, protect its confidential information and customers, and prevent unfair competition. They can also be completely useless.

While a well-drafted, enforceable non-compete clause can be a source of significant value for many companies, some are disappointed to find they have agreements that are unenforceable or otherwise inadequate. This article covers some of the most common mistakes companies make in non-compete/non-solicitation agreements.

The agreement is unenforceable because no consideration was given. One of the most common reasons courts refuse to enforce non-compete agreements is that employers make the mistake of obtaining consent from an already hired employee without providing the employee anything of value in return. Generally, such agreements are unenforceable because the employee did not receive any additional “consideration.” In essence, this means that the employee has not received anything of value in return for agreeing to the non-compete obligation. For a non-compete obligation to be enforceable, there must be consideration, which is a legal term for an exchange of value. For non-compete clauses of newly hired workers, the agreement usually only needs to state that the employer’s willingness to hire the worker is the value exchanged for the worker’s agreement not to compete. However, additional verification is required for existing employees to make an agreement enforceable. When employers with long-term employees receive a non-compete clause without providing anything of value in return, they end up with an unenforceable agreement. In many cases, the company is in a worse position than without a non-compete clause because it is relying on an agreement that is not legally enforceable. It is important to offer value to an existing employee in exchange for the non-compete obligation. This additional consideration could include more money, new job responsibilities and titles, new benefits, or a move from “at will” to “contract employee” status. While the additional consideration need not be of tremendous value, it must provide a genuine benefit to which the employee would not otherwise be entitled.

One of the most common reasons courts refuse to enforce non-compete agreements is that employers make the mistake of obtaining consent from an already hired employee without providing the employee anything of value in return. Generally, such agreements are unenforceable because the employee did not receive any additional “consideration.” In essence, this means that the employee has not received anything of value in return for agreeing to the non-compete obligation. For a non-compete obligation to be enforceable, there must be consideration, which is a legal term for an exchange of value. For non-compete clauses of newly hired workers, the agreement usually only needs to state that the employer’s willingness to hire the worker is the value exchanged for the worker’s agreement not to compete. However, additional verification is required for existing employees to make an agreement enforceable. When employers with long-term employees receive a non-compete clause without providing anything of value in return, they end up with an unenforceable agreement. In many cases, the company is in a worse position than without a non-compete clause because it is relying on an agreement that is not legally enforceable. It is important to offer value to an existing employee in exchange for the non-compete obligation. This additional consideration could include more money, new job responsibilities and titles, new benefits, or a move from “at will” to “contract employee” status. While the additional consideration need not be of tremendous value, it must provide a genuine benefit to which the employee would not otherwise be entitled. The agreement is unenforceable because it restricts competition for too long. Another common reason courts refuse to enforce a non-compete agreement is that the agreement prevents the employee from competing for an unreasonably long time. For example, a court is likely to refuse to enforce an agreement that bans an employee from competing for the rest of his life. In contrast, in many industries, a 6-month non-competition clause is considered appropriate and therefore enforceable. As a general rule, the duration of the agreement should not exceed what is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer. What is considered “reasonable” varies from company to company and requires specific consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrangement. This is an area where expert legal advice can be extremely valuable in creating an agreement of the maximum enforceable duration.

. Another common reason courts refuse to enforce a non-compete agreement is that the agreement prevents the employee from competing for an unreasonably long time. For example, a court is likely to refuse to enforce an agreement that bans an employee from competing for the rest of his life. In contrast, in many industries, a 6-month non-competition clause is considered appropriate and therefore enforceable. As a general rule, the duration of the agreement should not exceed what is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer. What is considered “reasonable” varies from company to company and requires specific consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrangement. This is an area where expert legal advice can be extremely valuable in creating an agreement of the maximum enforceable duration. The agreement is unenforceable because it restricts competition over an unreasonably large area. Many non-competition clauses are unenforceable because they limit competition to too broad an area. Non-competition clauses usually describe a restricted area in which the employee cannot compete. Often this restricted area is determined based on a specific kilometer radius around the employer’s headquarters or facilities, or by a list of cities or counties where the employee is not allowed to participate. While these limitations vary from agreement to agreement, the law requires that the geographic scope of a limitation must be reasonable. While agreements that prevent workers from competing within a few miles of an employer’s headquarters are often enforceable, agreements that prohibit an employee from competing anywhere in the world are often (though not always) unenforceable. What constitutes a “reasonable” geographic restriction varies from company to company, as does determining a reasonable duration for a non-compete obligation. Again, legal advice tailored to your business, industry and circumstances can be extremely valuable in determining the appropriate restricted area.

. Many non-competition clauses are unenforceable because they limit competition to too broad an area. Non-competition clauses usually describe a restricted area in which the employee cannot compete. Often this restricted area is determined based on a specific kilometer radius around the employer’s headquarters or facilities, or by a list of cities or counties where the employee is not allowed to participate. While these limitations vary from agreement to agreement, the law requires that the geographic scope of a limitation must be reasonable. While agreements that prevent workers from competing within a few miles of an employer’s headquarters are often enforceable, agreements that prohibit an employee from competing anywhere in the world are often (though not always) unenforceable. What constitutes a “reasonable” geographic restriction varies from company to company, as does determining a reasonable duration for a non-compete obligation. Again, legal advice tailored to your business, industry and circumstances can be extremely valuable in determining the appropriate restricted area. Using a one-size-fits-all approach. A non-compete clause that is good for one company or industry may be bad for another. Likewise, a non-compete clause created for use with one employee may be counterproductive when used with another. It is a mistake to take a one-size-fits-all approach to non-competitions. Unfortunately, some neglect this principle and develop non-compete agreements from agreements used in other industries or from something they find on the internet. Such a one-size-fits-all approach risks creating a non-compete clause that is not well-adapted to the specific needs of your business. Such an agreement may have a geographic or time limit that is inappropriate for your industry, making it unenforceable. In addition, a non-compete clause that is enforceable in one state may not be enforceable under the laws of another state. For these (and numerous other) reasons, a proper non-compete clause should include specific consideration of your company’s needs and circumstances.

. A non-compete clause that is good for one company or industry may be bad for another. Likewise, a non-compete clause created for use with one employee may be counterproductive when used with another. It is a mistake to take a one-size-fits-all approach to non-competitions. Unfortunately, some neglect this principle and develop non-compete agreements from agreements used in other industries or from something they find on the internet. Such a one-size-fits-all approach risks creating a non-compete clause that is not well-adapted to the specific needs of your business. Such an agreement may have a geographic or time limit that is inappropriate for your industry, making it unenforceable. In addition, a non-compete clause that is enforceable in one state may not be enforceable under the laws of another state. For these (and numerous other) reasons, a proper non-compete clause should include specific consideration of your company’s needs and circumstances. Obtain no non-compete clause if you buy a company or a company’s assets. It happened and it’s embarrassing. Sometimes an acquirer acquires a company without securing a non-compete obligation from the owners or key employees of the selling company, only to find shortly after the acquisition that it is in competition with the same people. If a company’s sellers have valuable customer relationships, know-how or skills, a buyer should consider insisting on a non-competition clause on the part of the owners and key personnel.

. It happened and it’s embarrassing. Sometimes an acquirer acquires a company without securing a non-compete obligation from the owners or key employees of the selling company, only to find shortly after the acquisition that it is in competition with the same people. If a company’s sellers have valuable customer relationships, know-how or skills, a buyer should consider insisting on a non-competition clause on the part of the owners and key personnel. Having no provision permitting you to transfer the Agreement. Another common mistake that occurs when selling a business is failing to include an assignment clause in the non-compete clause. Generally, some jurisdictions do not allow the seller of company assets to assign its non-compete obligation to the buyer unless the employee consents to the assignment. This means that the acquirer of a company’s assets may not be able to enforce its non-compete obligation without the employee’s consent. To avoid such a situation, a non-competition clause should contain a provision that allows the employer to transfer the agreement to a buyer of the company.

. Another common mistake that occurs when selling a business is failing to include an assignment clause in the non-compete clause. Generally, some jurisdictions do not allow the seller of company assets to assign its non-compete obligation to the buyer unless the employee consents to the assignment. This means that the acquirer of a company’s assets may not be able to enforce its non-compete obligation without the employee’s consent. To avoid such a situation, a non-competition clause should contain a provision that allows the employer to transfer the agreement to a buyer of the company. No Choice of Law Clause. It is critical that a non-compete clause adequately addresses which laws of the jurisdiction govern the agreement. An agreement that is enforceable in one state may not be enforceable in another. Likewise, a remedy for a breach of a non-competition clause may be a remedy in one jurisdiction but prohibited in another. This poses significant problems for companies doing business in multiple states. This is another reason why a one-size-fits-all approach to non-compete agreements could hurt your business. It is important to ensure that your non-compete agreements address the complex issues arising from the various (often conflicting) state laws that govern such agreements. This is another area where legal advice can be invaluable when tailored to the needs of your business.

. It is critical that a non-compete clause adequately addresses which laws of the jurisdiction govern the agreement. An agreement that is enforceable in one state may not be enforceable in another. Likewise, a remedy for a breach of a non-competition clause may be a remedy in one jurisdiction but prohibited in another. This poses significant problems for companies doing business in multiple states. This is another reason why a one-size-fits-all approach to non-compete agreements could hurt your business. It is important to ensure that your non-compete agreements address the complex issues arising from the various (often conflicting) state laws that govern such agreements. This is another area where legal advice can be invaluable when tailored to the needs of your business. Don’t update. Your business circumstances and non-compete laws change from time to time. If these critical agreements are not regularly updated or reviewed, they risk becoming irrelevant to a company’s changing needs. Many things change for a company, including its key employees, its key customers, and the information or technology it chooses to keep confidential—which means its non-competitors must change from time to time, too.

. Your business circumstances and non-compete laws change from time to time. If these critical agreements are not regularly updated or reviewed, they risk becoming irrelevant to a company’s changing needs. Many things change for a company, including its key employees, its key customers, and the information or technology it chooses to keep confidential—which means its non-competitors must change from time to time, too. Remember that just because you have one, your problems are solved. While non-competition clauses can be enormously valuable, they are not a panacea. It is a mistake to think that such an agreement is the only thing required to retain valuable employees or protect your company’s confidential information. Employees can choose at any time to oppose a non-competition clause and risk the legal consequences. A company’s confidential information may still be kept secret by an employee in violation of a non-competition clause. Non-competition clauses can make such actions more difficult and the consequences more serious, but they rarely make such occurrences impossible. The reality is that retaining valuable employees and customers and protecting a company’s confidential information is a multifaceted task. Therefore, it is important not to think of a non-compete clause as a silver bullet or a panacea, but rather as another tool in the toolbox. Such a tool can be of tremendous value to a business if used correctly.

. While non-competition clauses can be enormously valuable, they are not a panacea. It is a mistake to think that such an agreement is the only thing required to retain valuable employees or protect your company’s confidential information. Employees can choose at any time to oppose a non-competition clause and risk the legal consequences. A company’s confidential information may still be kept secret by an employee in violation of a non-competition clause. Non-competition clauses can make such actions more difficult and the consequences more serious, but they rarely make such occurrences impossible. The reality is that retaining valuable employees and customers and protecting a company’s confidential information is a multifaceted task. Therefore, it is important not to think of a non-compete clause as a silver bullet or a panacea, but rather as another tool in the toolbox. Such a tool can be of tremendous value to a business if used correctly. Make sure the non-compete clause is in accordance with the law in your jurisdiction. The landscape of employee non-compete clauses continues to evolve rapidly. Some states have enacted new restrictions on the use of non-compete clauses, such as Maryland and Virginia, which have banned non-compete clauses for low-wage or hourly workers. In California, not only are non-compete agreements unenforceable, but an employer who requires employees to sign them can be sued, even if the employer never tries to enforce the agreement. In addition, on July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to promote competition in the American economy (“Order”). Among other things, the regulation encourages the FTC to use its statutory rulemaking powers “to restrict the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that might unfairly restrict worker mobility.” The FTC has not yet issued rules on the use of non-compete clauses, and while a total ban on non-compete clauses is unlikely, it is important to review the current state of the laws in your jurisdiction if you are entering into a non-compete clause with an employer or employee.

A company’s investment in its people, customer relationships and confidential information is too valuable to expose to unfair competition. MacElree Harvey lawyers can assist you in reviewing your non-compete agreements and developing agreements tailored to the unique needs of your business. To schedule a consultation, contact Harry J. DiDonato at 610.840.0237, Robert A. Burke at 610.840.0211 or a member of our commercial law team.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Talk to a licensed attorney about your own specific situation.

Can my employer terminate me for secondary employment?

It has become increasingly common for workers to hold two jobs at the same time. If you are employed by more than one organization, you should be aware of certain circumstances in which engaging in outside employment may give rise to termination.

Express restraint

The terms of your employment contract may prohibit you from engaging in secondary employment. If this is the case, taking on a side job may violate your terms of employment and put you at risk of termination.

In Bradford Pedley v IPMS Pty Ltd T/A pecvonhartel [2013] FWC 4282, Mr Pedley, an architectural firm clerk, was dismissed from his employment despite having disclosed an interest in continuing private design work.

During his tenure, Mr. Pedley attempted to solicit clients for his employer’s company through a LinkedIn email. The Fair Work Commission accepted that in sending the email Mr Pendley breached clauses 2.8 and 2.11 of his contract of employment which provided that he would not: ‘Have any appointment or position (including directorships) or work or advise or provide services perform, or be involved in or associated with any business or activity that results in the business or activity being in competition with us; adversely affects us or our reputation, or interferes with the performance of your duties” and that he must “act honestly at all times and consistent with [his] employment”.

In these circumstances, the Fair Work Commission concluded that Mr Pendley’s employer had a clear reason to lose confidence that Mr Pendley would represent their interests. Therefore, the employer had a valid reason to fire him.

Health and safety at work

As an employee you have certain responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic). This includes taking reasonable care of your own health and safety and that of others who may be affected by your actions or omissions in the workplace, and also working with your employer to ensure workplace safety.

If your side hustle affects your health and safety enough that you cannot safely perform your duties, your employer may have good reason to terminate you.

The case of Grafton v Waverley Council (No. 2) [2017] NSWIRComm 1020 can be used as an example. In this case, Mr. Grafton worked as a full-time team member at Waverley Council (the Council) and as a full-time night filler/salesman at Woolworths. Council only became aware of Mr Grafton’s sideline when he made a claim for workers’ compensation following an accident at work.

The council instructed Mr Grafton to reduce his working hours to reduce the risk of fatigue from working two jobs. However, Mr Grafton refused to make any changes. He also refused to allow the council to contact Woolworths and answer questions about his work obligations at Woolworths. Accordingly, the Council terminated Mr. Grafton’s employment for serious misconduct as he failed to respond and continue to fail to follow his lawful and reasonable instructions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unfair. The Commissioner noted that the Council owed a duty to ensure, as far as possible, the health and safety of Mr Grafton, his colleagues and the general public. The nature of Mr. Grafton’s two work commitments raised obvious potential fatigue issues. Accordingly, given the circumstances and Mr Grafton’s unwillingness to cooperate, the Council had no choice but to terminate his employment.

conflict of interest

Under certain circumstances, holding a part-time job may present a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest can arise if your sideline is in the same business field as your main line of business. If so, your employer may have legitimate concerns about a breach of confidentiality.

Alternatively, by holding a second job, you may breach your implied duty of good faith to your employer. Whether or not there has been a violation ultimately depends on the facts and circumstances of your case. According to the case of Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66, a breach can be found if:

you are guilty of conduct that is inconsistent with your duty and the confidential relationship between you and your employer; and

an actual contradiction between your actions and your employment relationship must be established.

In Bril v Rex Australia Ltd [2015] FWC 88, Mr Bril, a transport driver, was employed by K & K Glass. Mr. Bril worked as a temporary driver for a customer of K & K Glass during his annual leave. Mr Bril was forced to resign from K & K Glass after his employer found out he had been working for his client.

The Fair Work Commission found the forced termination to be harsh, unfair and unreasonable. In particular, the Fair Labor Commissioner found that there was no conflict of interest as the client did not work in the same field as K & K Glass and there was no evidence that the work Mr Bril performed for the client might otherwise have been his performed for K&K Glass.

In addition, the Fair Work Commission found that “taking on a secondary job that does not interfere with the principal employer’s business does not violate an implied contractual obligation of loyalty and good faith. Even the tacit term does not oblige the employee to disclose such a secondary activity.”

The above cases show that under certain circumstances your employer may have reasons to terminate you because of a side job. Therefore, before agreeing to take on a second job, you should:

Carefully review the terms of your contract and any Company policies to ensure you are not specifically prohibited from accepting additional employment;

Consider whether engaging in your side hustle is affecting your health and well-being, and the health and well-being of others in the workplace.

Inform your employer of the nature of your obligations to your secondary employer; and

Consider whether your second employer is active in the same business field as your main employer.

7715 views

Many organizations require new hires to sign non-compete agreements before coming on board. Although they cannot legally force you to sign the clause, refusing to do so may affect your employment prospects.

Still, that doesn’t mean you should just sign whatever is presented to you. Before you sign a non-compete clause, you should understand what it is and how it is legally enforced (or not).

What is a non-compete clause?

Non-competition clauses are often found in employment contracts. When an employee signs a non-compete agreement, they undertake not to work for a competitor of their employer in the future. Typically, the non-compete clause describes the conditions under which the clause can be enforced. These include:

Time frame: How long does the non-competition clause apply? Clauses that go beyond two years are less likely to be upheld in court.

Territory: In which geographic region does the non-compete clause apply? Again, greater specificity makes the clause more enforceable. However, this can vary greatly depending on the industry.

Definition of competitors: What counts as a competitor to your employer? Many clauses state the specific industry and may even include a list of companies.

Penalty: how much money do you owe your former employer if you breach the non-competition clause? While this can be enforced, it is also possible for a court to decide that the sum is unreasonable if you get into litigation.

Compensation: What are the benefits of signing the non-compete agreement? This can include both monetary remuneration and benefits such as flexible working hours, further training, etc.

What is the purpose of a non-compete clause?

While it appears that the primary purpose of non-compete obligations is for companies to protect their talent, that is not the legal justification for them. Employees involved in product development often sign non-compete agreements to protect trade secrets. For sales professionals, the purpose of a non-compete obligation is to protect customer relationships. If you build valuable business relationships in your current role, you can’t get a new job at a competitor and invite your clients to switch. Non-competition clauses are intended to prevent this.

Laws on non-compete disputes vary significantly between states. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in some states, such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, while in California, for example, employers who require a non-compete clause can even be sued. Before signing, find out about the laws in your state.

How enforceable is a non-competition clause?

Like all legal agreements, a non-competition clause is only as meaningful as a court’s willingness to enforce it. If you breach your non-compete obligation, your employer can take the matter to court (although not all do). You probably don’t want to get into a legal battle, but it’s a worst-case scenario when you and your employer have an irreconcilable dispute.

You cannot predict how any particular court will interpret your non-compete clause. However, the courts usually take several factors into account when evaluating a clause.

Generally, clauses that are strictly defined in terms of timeframe, geographic area and industry are more likely to be enforced. Sometimes these factors can influence each other. A court is more likely to enforce a broad scope clause if the period is relatively short.

The court will examine whether the clause prevents you from earning a living. If the clause prohibits you from doing entirely different duties in a new position, it is likely to be less enforceable.

In addition, a company requesting a non-compete obligation must demonstrate that there is compelling justification for the non-compete obligation. If you start a new job, how is your old employer proven to be harmed? Typically, the ability to poach customers is considered a legitimate reason for a non-compete obligation.

In some states, courts must determine whether employees received any tangible benefits in exchange for signing the non-compete agreement, known as “quid pro quo.” Courts may also consider the type of work you do, your length of employment and the specific training you received during your employment.

Going to court over a non-competition clause is a last resort. If a court decides against you, you owe your former employer all penalties described in the clause.

How does a non-competition clause affect my equity?

In many cases, non-compete obligations affect your equity and stock options. These provisions are sometimes referred to as restrictive covenants. A restrictive agreement could state that violations of the non-competition clause lead to a recovery. This means your employer has the right to sue you to recover any profits from stock awards. Alternatively, you could be subject to forfeiture of shares and equity that has not yet vested. This is often one of the most powerful tools employers have to enforce the non-competition clause.

Not all non-compete clauses affect stock/stock options. To determine if your non-competition clause affects fairness, read the section of your contract that deals with fairness.

Does my non-competition clause also apply if I leave my job involuntarily?

In most cases, the non-competition clause will still apply if you are fired or fired. However, you may be able to ask your former employer to waive the clause. In such circumstances, employers are sometimes more willing to waive the clause.

What should I do before signing a non-compete agreement?

Before you sign a non-compete agreement, find out about the laws governing non-compete agreements in your state. Then read the agreement (and the rest of your contract) completely. If possible, contact an employment law attorney who can tell you if there are any provisions that are far outside the legal norms in your state. A lawyer may be able to help you negotiate more favorable terms if you have concerns. In some cases, you may even be able to negotiate to waive the non-compete clause altogether.

If you find yourself in a situation where you may be in breach of the Clause, prior consultation with a solicitor is a necessary precaution.

Non-compete agreements can sound scary, but if you fully understand what your agreement says, you can protect yourself.

Disclaimer: All information provided in this post is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CloserIQ makes no claims as to the accuracy or validity of this information and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from its use. We recommend that you seek legal advice on how this directly impacts your business before taking any action.

An informal study of non-solicitations will show what restrictions you may encounter.

By Dan Jamieson and Rick Weinberg

The table below shows examples of non-solicitations used by different companies in contracts. These agreements generally prohibit any kind of customer contact after the end of the employment relationship. Most even prohibit contact with prospects you spotted at your previous employer.

Only Merrill Lynch and First Union Securities provided RR with current copies of the brokerage agreements. (First Union uses an apprentice-only contract, and A.G. Edwards does not require non-solicitations.) Other agreements have been obtained from attorneys and courts and may not be current versions. However, brokers are bound by the agreements they signed when accepting employment and may be bound by their contracts regardless of the reason for termination of employment.

CompanyLanguage Data from Contract Title and LanguageMerrill LynchCurrent Financial Advisor Employment Agreement “I agree that I will not solicit an account by mail, telephone, in person, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, for a period of one year after my termination whom I served or whose name became known to me in any office or capacity during my employment with Merrill Lynch. …The only exception is my family and relatives.” Prudential SecuritiesOctober 1997Financial Advisor In Training Agreement “…I agree that I will not solicit by mail, telephone or electronic communications for a period of one year after the termination of my employment, B .by meeting in person or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, or accept business from clients, customers, prospects or prospects of PSI who [sic] I have served or whose name came to my attention during my employment with PSI office and in any capacity…”Smith BarneyMay 1997Financial Advisor and Staff Employment Agreement and Restrictive Agreements”…I agree that for a period of one year after my termination I will not solicit by mail, telephone, face-to-face meeting or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, any account I have served or its name became known to me during my employment with Smith Barney in any office and in any capacity. … The only exception is my family and relatives.” Dean Witter ReynoldsFebruary 1991Account Executive Trainee Employment Agreement “For a period of one year after termination of employment for any reason and within a one hundred (100) mile radius of Dean Witter’s office, the the Associate was last assigned, the Associate will not, directly or indirectly, solicit or attempt to solicit, in relation to securities, commodities, financial futures, clients of Dean Witter who were served by Dean Witter or whose names became known to the Associate during his employment with Dean Witter , insurance, tax-deferred investments, mutual funds, or any other line of business in which Dean Witter or any of his affiliates engages in business.” PaineWebber January 1994 Investment Executive Trainee Agreement “… The employee agrees not to … for a period of 120 days from the date of termination of the employment relationship of the employee, any clients of PaineWebber whom the employee served [other than by blood or marriage] or other clients of PaineWebber whose names became known to the employee while employed by PaineWebber in the PaineWebber office where the employee was employed and who reside within 100 miles of the PaineWebber office where the employee was employed…”First, Union SecuritiesCurrentTraining Contract “…The FA Candidate shall not, for a period of six (6) months following such termination, either directly or indirectly solicit or cause or allow to be solicited any FIRST UNION client with whom the FA Candidate has had contact or otherwise learned of during the course of his or her employment with FIRST UNION, including but not limited to FIRST UNION Clients whose Account FA Candidate was mentored as [sic] FIRST UNION Financial Advisor.”Dain BosworthDecember 1991Ar Contract of Employment “… for forty-five (45) days following termination… The associate will not, directly or indirectly: a) notify a customer of DBI that he/she intends to accept or has elected to accept employment from… another brother ker -dealer … b) soliciting or assisting in the transfer of the accounts [including the mailing of transfer forms] of customers who have accounts with DBI and with whom the employee has in any way done business during the period of employment of DBI. “Edward JonesMarch 1994 Investment Representatives Employment Agreement “During a period of one year after the termination of this Agreement, you will not solicit or otherwise cause, directly or indirectly, the sale of any securities and/or insurance business to or from Jones clients, Jones clients, his/her relationship to terminate Jones if you have such a client during or as a result of your employment 1992 Account Executive Employment Agreement (for employed agents) “…the agent will not, directly or indirectly, be employed for a period of ( 1) years after the effective date of such termination, either on or for the account of the Distributor, as a partner or joint venture, employee, broker, agent, producer or seller for any other person, firm or entity, or as an officer, director or stockholder of any corporation or otherwise soliciting, directly or indirectly, investment, banking, brokerage or other securities dealings for clients held on the books of Raymond James with whom a transaction has taken place within the twenty-four (24) calendar month period prior the termination date of the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not b this transaction was or was not carried out by the agent.”

What 5 questions should you ask before signing a non-compete agreement?

Over the years, job opportunities have become increasingly aggressive and competitive. Employers have the luxury of being extremely selective when it comes to hiring, and workers may be willing to look into less-than-ideal jobs in order to have a steady paycheck.

However, just because the job market is quite volatile right now doesn’t mean people should make important employment decisions without thinking about the long-term implications. For example, before entering into an employment contract with a non-compete clause, it can be crucial to think carefully about what the clause could mean for the future.

5 questions to ask yourself before signing a non-compete agreement

Who is restricted by the contract? You should understand your limitations as well as the limitations of your potential employer. What options are limited? The answer to this question should include the specific roles or businesses you are not permitted to perform. When does the clause expire? There should be limitations on how long the non-competition clause will be in force. Whether it’s for six months out of five years can make a big difference in your options after you’re hired. Where are you not allowed to work? Some non-compete clauses set limits on future employment based on location. Awareness of these limitations could affect whether a person actually needs to move to find suitable employment when future prospects are limited. Why is this clause needed? Non-competition clauses should only be necessary if they protect a company’s legitimate interests. If the contract appears frivolous, it may not be valid.

Asking these questions can help you understand your options when it comes to deciding whether you should sign the agreement and how you may need to negotiate. In any case, it can be crucial to review the employment contract with a lawyer who can spot potential problems and help both employers and employees avoid costly mistakes.

Source: FindLaw.com, “Non-Competition Agreements: Overview”, accessed 28 April 2015

Non-compete attorneys in Fort Lauderdale

Understanding non-compete clauses in Florida, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico and New York

Non-compete agreements are legally binding restrictive contracts between an employer and an employee. These agreements typically prohibit an employee from competing directly or indirectly with the Company for a specified period of time after termination of employment. Employers often use these contracts to protect their business interests.

Under State Law Fla. Stat. § 542.335, Non-compete clauses are legal and enforceable in Florida and other states so long as they meet certain reasonable requirements. First, the restrictions set out in a non-compete obligation must be supported by a legitimate business interest. Second, the scope and/or duration of the agreement must not be unreasonable.

For more information on non-compete agreements, or if you have been asked to sign an agreement by a current or potential employer, contact USA Employment Lawyers for a free case evaluation. We represent clients in Florida, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico and New York.

Call (800) 483-0998 or submit an online contact form to speak to one of our Fort Lauderdale non-compete attorneys about your case.

What are “legitimate business interests”?

As previously mentioned, non-compete clauses must involve legitimate business interests in order to be valid and enforceable in most states. In other words, the restrictions set out in the agreement must be designed to protect interests that provide measurable value to the company/employer.

According to Fla. Stat. § 542.335, Section 542.335(1)(b), “legitimate business interests” include:

trade secrets

Confidential Business Information

Valuable Personal Information

Highly specialized training

A specific ongoing business practice

A specific geographic market or location

Significant relationships with current or potential customers/clients

Essentially, a non-competition clause serves to protect a company from unfair competition. Non-competition clauses must not be too broad or too restrictive, or they may be deemed unenforceable by the court.

What non-competition clauses can and cannot do

Compared to other states, Florida non-compete laws tend to favor the employer slightly. As long as a non-competition clause is not unreasonable, it is usually upheld by the court. In most cases, non-compete clauses lasting six months or less are considered appropriate, but those longer than two years are not. When enforcing a non-competition clause, the court will also consider other factors, such as geographic restrictions and the business interests involved.

An effective non-competition clause may restrict your ability to find employment in certain industries in certain locations for a certain period of time. However, if such an agreement is found to be inappropriate or wrongfully prevents you from finding employment, it may not be enforceable.

Contact our law firm for a free case evaluation

If you are an employee who has been asked to sign a non-compete agreement, or if you believe a non-compete agreement is inappropriate, it is important that you speak with an experienced attorney. Similarly, if you are an employer looking to protect your business interests, our team can help you draft or enforce a valid non-competition clause. Our firm supports both workers and employers throughout the state of Florida, as well as in Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico and New York.

Non-competition clauses are a well-known and interesting topic in employment law, with more and more companies trying to protect their interests.

How enforceable are these strict non-competition clauses for employers and employees and what do you need to know when it comes to applying or complying with these clauses?

Associated documents: non-competition clause, employment contract

What is a non-compete clause?

A non-compete clause is part of an employment contract originally designed to protect confidential company information (such as intellectual property, customer lists, or financial data) from leakage by employees to competitors.

This generally means that former employees, after having worked for their current employer, cannot work for their company’s competitors for a certain period of time.

employer

From the employer’s point of view, non-competition clauses reduce the risk of entrusting employees with private material. These clauses are also commonly used in consultancy and contractor contracts due to the high risk of hiring someone temporarily to complete a project.

employee

In the past, it was only executives, shareholders or officials who used non-competition clauses. These are jobs where the employee is privy to vital information that, if compromised, could result in lost customers or stolen ideas.

Today, non-competition clauses appear in almost every industry. This may be because there is a need for more protection or because the transmission of this information has become easier. It could also be because people are valuable commodities and losing talented minds to the competition is a huge success. Not only are they an asset, they can apply what they know about one company to another.

Are non-competition clauses enforceable?

It depends on the circumstances. Every situation is slightly different. Judges will consider several factors when deciding on a decision for these types of cases, including:

Local or Regional Restrictions: Generally, fancy geographic restrictions (such as statewide regulations) are unenforceable because they are inappropriate for the employee. A local restriction may exist as long as it is necessary to protect the employer.

Generally, fancy geographic restrictions (such as statewide regulations) are unenforceable because they are inappropriate for the employee. A local restriction may exist as long as it is necessary to protect the employer. Time Limits: While there is no limit to the amount of time an employer can set, the longer it is, the more likely it is that it will not be fair to the employee.

While there is no limit to the length of time an employer can set, the longer it is, the more likely it is that it will not be fair to the employee. Type of industry, job, or specific company: Companies that have direct competitors can indicate the company they would like former employees to avoid. However, an employer cannot generally restrict the field of employment.

Companies that have direct competitors can indicate the company they would like former employees to avoid. However, an employer cannot generally restrict the field of employment. Circumstance: Sometimes non-competition clauses depend on whether the company terminated the employee or whether he left the company voluntarily.

Sometimes non-competition clauses depend on whether the company terminated the employee or whether he left the company voluntarily. Economy: If the non-compete obligation affects the local economy, for example by putting another company out of business or by restricting competition, it may not be enforceable.

If the non-compete obligation affects the local economy, for example by putting another company out of business or by restricting competition, it may not be enforceable. The worker’s ability to find work: A worker should be able to find a job after leaving their current job. If the court finds the non-competition clause too restrictive, it will not stand.

An employee should be able to find a job after leaving their current one. If the court finds the non-competition clause too restrictive, it will not stand. Too extensive or unnecessary: ​​If the employer has imposed unnecessary restrictions on its employees, the court will not uphold the non-competition clauses. For example, if they ban the employee from finding work with a competitor anywhere in the state for four years.

If the employer has created unnecessary restrictions on its employees, the court will not uphold the non-competition clauses. For example, if they ban the employee from finding work with a competitor anywhere in the state for four years. Type of work/position performed: If an employee does not have access to confidential information or trade secrets, courts may find the non-compete clause unnecessary as they cannot disclose sensitive material.

Creation of a non-compete agreement

Non-compete clauses are not permitted in certain states, such as California, except in very severe circumstances. Always check your state labor laws before using or signing any document with non-compete clauses.

Using a non-compete clause is one way to protect your company’s confidential information, but you should only use one when warranted and make sure the terms are reasonable. Consider whether a judge would consider your terms fair to protect your business.

Signing of a non-compete agreement

If an employer asks you to sign an employment contract with a non-compete clause, be sure to read the fine print and ask yourself whether the non-compete clause is relevant to your job, fair, and appropriate for you as an employee.

As the world goes digital, non-competition clauses are a hot topic. As competition intensifies and employees change jobs more frequently, it’s increasingly important to keep secrets secret and valuable employees in your organization. Proper use of a non-compete obligation can protect your business.

Apply only for employees who do not qualify for minimum wage and FLSA overtime waiver for bona fide executives, administrative staff, professionals and field workers;

Prohibit an employer from enforcing or threatening to enforce a non-compete agreement with a non-exempt employee;

Prohibit an employer from entering into, extending or renewing a non-compete agreement with a non-exempt employee; and

Enforced by the Department of Labor under the existing FLSA framework for minimum wage and overtime violations.

U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) introduced legislation that would protect low-wage, entry-level workers from non-compete clauses that restrict their employment opportunities and limit their ability to negotiate higher wages and benefits. In particular, the (FLSA) would be amended to prevent employers from using non-compete clauses in employment contracts for certain non-exempt workers. Rubio first introduced the legislation in January 2019. A one-pager version of the bill is available here. “Non-compete clauses that arbitrarily prevent low-wage, entry-level workers from pursuing better employment opportunities are egregious and outdated, especially in today’s economy.” This bipartisan legislation would empower these American workers by preventing employers from using non-compete clauses in employment contracts. It’s a sensible move to improve opportunities and upward mobility for low-wage workers.” “It doesn’t make sense that entry-level low-wage workers are often prevented by non-competition clauses from finding better employment opportunities and negotiating higher wages.” “That’s why I became a senator Rubio joined to reintroduce legislation to protect many low-wage workers from these restrictive agreements. I will continue to advocate for worker rights and benefits so Granite Staters have access to better economic opportunities.”

Beginning January 1, 2022, Illinois employers will be more limited in their ability to bind employees to non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. These changes result from a recent amendment to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act, Illinois Senate Bill 672 (the Amendment). The amendment codified several restrictions around restrictive agreements, including non-compete and non-solicitation clauses, that previously were only dealt with by court decisions. The amendment has also imposed new hurdles related to non-compete and non-advertising. These changes, detailed below, apply to non-compete and non-solicitation agreements that close on or after January 1, 2022.

Minimum salary requirements for non-compete and advertising bans

Previously, Illinois law prohibited employers from entering into non-compete agreements with employees earning $13 an hour or less. As amended, the Freedom to Work Act prohibits non-compete obligations for employees who earn $75,000 a year or less. The amendment also prohibits customer and employee poaching agreements for employees earning $45,000 per year or less. The salary threshold will be increased to account for inflation through 2037. For non-competition, the thresholds will be increased as follows: $80,000 by January 1, 2027; $85,000 through January 1, 2032; and $90,000 by January 1, 2037. For non-prompts, the threshold increases as follows: $47,500 in 2027; $50,000 in 2032; and $52,500 in 2037.

Generally prohibited non-competition in the construction industry and with unionized workers

With few exceptions, the amendment to the Freedom of Labor Act prohibits non-competition clauses for workers in the construction industry in general. However, non-competition clauses may apply to those workers in construction whose primary duties involve management, engineering, architectural design or sales. Those who are shareholders, partners or owners of a company in the construction industry may also be required to sign non-compete agreements.

The amendment also prohibits non-competition clauses for individuals covered by a collective bargaining agreement under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act or the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act.

Employees must be directed to contact legal counsel and given 14 days to sign

The amendment requires employees who are asked to sign a non-compete or solicitation non-compete agreement to be given at least 14 calendar days to review the agreement. Employers must also instruct employees in writing to consult legal counsel before signing the agreement. Failure to comply with these Terms will render the Agreement unlawful and void.

Reasonable consideration must support non-competition and non-advertising

For a non-compete or non-solicitation clause to be enforceable, it must be supported by valid consideration. In general, a consideration is something of value offered to an employee in exchange for signing an agreement. What constitutes reasonable consideration has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. The Labor Freedom Act Amendment defines “reasonable consideration” as follows: (1) two years of employment after the employee signs the non-compete or non-solicitation clause; or (2) other “consideration reasonably necessary to support an agreement not to participate in competitions or not to advertise, which consideration may consist of a period of employment plus additional professional or financial benefits, or professional or financial benefits only, which are appropriate on their own.”

While “professional or financial benefits” are not defined in the new law, experience dictates that such benefits typically include a salary increase, bonus, stock award, promotion, special training and educational benefits.

Employers must have legitimate business interests that must be protected

The amendment also codifies the requirement that a restrictive agreement must be supported by a legitimate business interest. As before, such interests typically include protecting an employer’s trade secrets or customer relationships. The amendment provides that when determining whether a legitimate business interest exists, “all of the facts and circumstances of the individual case should be considered” and “each situation should be assessed on its own particular facts”. Relevant factors include the employee’s exposure to the customer relationships of the employer or other employees; the almost permanent customer relationship; Acquisition, use or knowledge of confidential information by the employee; and the time, place and extent of the restrictions.

Additional Mandatory Enforcement Requirements

The amendment, which codifies legal requirements previously laid down in court decisions, provides that non-competition and non-solicitation agreements are unlawful and void unless: (1) the employee receives reasonable consideration; (2) the agreement is accessory to a valid agreement of employment, (3) the agreement is no larger than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer (see below), (4) the agreement does not create undue hardship for the employee, and (5) the agreement is of public interest not harmful.

Authorized Blue Penciling

While the Illinois Freedom to Work Act, as amended, cautions against completely rewriting non-compete clauses, it states that courts are free to reform or vacate non-compete and non-solicitation clauses rather than declaring them unenforceable as a whole. Relevant factors in determining whether judicial reformation is appropriate include the fairness of the limitations as originally written, whether the original limitation reflected a bona fide effort to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer, the extent of such reformation, and whether the parties included are a reform authorization clause in the agreement. For this reason, it will continue to be important to include a blue pencil clause in any restrictive covenant agreement.

Restrictions related to COVID-19

The change also limits employers’ ability to enter into restrictive agreements with employees who have been terminated, laid off or furloughed due to the COVID-19 pandemic or similar circumstances. It provides that restrictive agreements with such employees are prohibited unless the enforcement includes compensation equal to the employee’s base salary upon termination for the period of enforcement, less compensation earned by the employee through subsequent employment.

Certain agreements are exempt

The amendment to the Employment Freedom Act makes it clear that it does not apply to the following types of agreements:

Confidentiality Agreements.

Agreements Prohibiting the Use or Disclosure of Trade Secrets.

Invention Transfer Agreements.

Garden leave clauses (arrangements under which an employee who leaves a job – after being given notice or otherwise having had their employment terminated – is ordered to stay away from work during the notice period while remaining on the payroll).

Restrictive agreements entered into as part of an acquisition or sale of a business, including the acquisition or sale of an ownership interest in a business.

Agreements in which an employee undertakes not to reapply to the same employer after termination.

Attorneys’ Fees and Enforcement Opportunities

In addition to the remedies available under the restrictive covenant agreements themselves, the amendment provides that an employee may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees if the employee prevails in a lawsuit brought by an employer seeking to to enforce a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement.

The amendments allow the Illinois Attorney General’s office to file litigation or intervene when “there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or entity is engaged in a pattern and practice prohibited by law.” The Attorney General also has the power to investigate possible violations and seek a civil sanction in a lawsuit.

Revise non-compete and solicitation prohibitions with an attorney to ensure compliance

Because of the many significant changes mandated by the Labor Freedom Amendment Act, businesses should work with legal counsel to bring their non-compete and non-solicitation laws into line with this new law. Otherwise, many agreements could become legally void.

*This update was published on Westlaw Today on March 14, 2022.

© 2022 Perkins Coie LLP

The Washington Non-Competition Agreement Act governs when a non-compete agreement may be considered valid or enforceable under state law.

break even

One aspect of the Washington non-compete restrictions relates to revenue. Only employees or self-employed contractors earning more than the statutory thresholds can be bound by non-compete obligations. If an employee or independent contractor earns less than the statutory income limit, the non-compete agreements are void and unenforceable under RCW 49.62. These thresholds are set out in RCW 49.62.020 (for employees) and RCW 49.62.030 (for independent contractors).

According to RCW 49.62.040, the Ministry of Labor and Industry has to adjust these inflation thresholds every year. The adjustments for 2021 are listed below.

Legislative Dollar Adjustments Unadjusted (2020) 2021 Thresholds 2022 Thresholds Calculated Thresholds RCW 49.62.020 $100,000.00 $101,390.00 $107,301.04 RCW 49.62.030 $250,000.00 $253,475.00 $2.68

Other elements of the Non-Competition Act

In addition to the income limits set by law, the law also sets other restrictions on non-compete clauses in Washington. These other restrictions include:

A provision in a non-compete agreement signed by a Washington-based employee or independent contractor is void and unenforceable if the agreement requires the employee to make decisions about the agreement outside of Washington and if the agreement denies the protections required by law for employees . See RCW 49.62.050.

Franchisors may not prevent franchisees from hiring employees of the franchisor or other franchisees from the same franchisor. See RCW 49.62.060.

Employers are generally not allowed to ban outside employment for workers earning less than twice the state minimum wage; this limitation is subject to some limitations. See RCW 49.62.070.

violations of the law

Under Washington’s non-compete law, prosecutors can seek appeals for violations of the law. Injured persons can also take legal action themselves.

To file a complaint or if you have questions about this law, contact the DA’s office or call 206-587-5510. L&I has no enforcement powers under this law.

It’s time for you to start a new chapter in your career. As you prepare to leave your company, you may be required to sign a non-compete agreement to complete the end of your term of employment. Or you may have signed one when you first started at the company. You may be wondering what a non-compete clause is, but worry not, the Pearson Butler team is here to assist you with all of your employment needs.

What is a non-competition clause?

A non-competition clause is a written agreement between an employee and an employer that prohibits the employee from working at a similar or competing company after leaving the company. If your employer asks you to sign a non-compete agreement before you leave, chances are it won’t be enforceable.

Are non-compete clauses enforceable in Utah?

In Utah, an employer can enforce a non-compete obligation as long as it is within one year from the date the employee ceases to be employed. However, this only applies to non-competition clauses drawn up after May 10, 2016. If the employer can show the following elements, a court is likely to enforce the agreement:

There was no “bad faith” in negotiations,

The agreement was “supported by consideration”

The agreement was “necessary to protect company value”

It was “reasonable in its temporal and spatial limitations”.

A non-competition clause can be enforced if it was part of a termination agreement agreed between the employer and employee at the time of termination and meets the elements above.

If a former employee violates a non-compete obligation, the employer may seek a court to issue orders ordering them to stop violating the order. You can also force the ex-employee to pay non-competition damages if their new position is detrimental to business operations.

It is important to note that if the court finds that the non-competition clause is unreasonable or fails to meet the above elements, it is unlikely to be enforced. If you have questions or concerns about your non-compete agreement, we encourage you to speak with an employment attorney.

Employment Lawyers in South Jordan

We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again – every case is different. However, if you feel your employer is being unfair about your non-competition clause, you should make your voice heard. When you’re ready, give our attorneys at Pearson Butler a call. We’ll walk you through your agreement and find out what potential options are available to you.

You can contact our office through our website or by phone at (800) 265-2314 to begin your free consultation.