For example, in Florida, the law supports competition bans so that the facts of your situation and the state in which you live determine where the agreement is enforced against you. Today`s decision rescisses previous guidelines on how to separate certain parts of contracts in Attwood v. Lamont in 1920. Labor law expert Matt McDonald von Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, described the Supreme Court`s decision as „pragmatic,“ which would make it harder for employees to argue that restrictive agreements — especially those that aim to prevent an employee from working for a competitor after termination — are not enforceable due to highly technical „errors“ in drafting. „While it was found that the restrictions were excessive, which raised some doubts about the applicability of many existing restrictions, the court appears to have a much broader mandate than before to reduce the clauses to what it deems reasonable and enforceable,“ he said. Business protection is a critical concern for employers and, in particular, in a market where digital competition and innovation have increased. Employers should therefore use this decision to consider possible restrictions after dismissal, in particular for senior managers and key remuneration. That is what matters. There may be claims that you can make against the new employer because they did not inform you in advance that this was a requirement. These rights vary from state to state and may depend on the applicability of the non-compete clause. The best thing would be to have no non-competition clause at all. Otherwise, you should try to limit it as much as possible in geographical scope and duration.
Narrowly limit it to the area where the employer really cares about you – not the whole industry or industry. For example, you might wonder that the limitation to the clothing retail trade is to work in a clothing store, unlike retail in general, which would cover a very wide range of possible jobs that really have nothing to do with it. The aim is to limit the agreement to what is necessary to protect the employer. You should also consider applying for severance pay in the event of involuntary dismissal. Parties often make the mistake of introducing a non-compete clause into an employee`s salary. This can lead to the invalidation of the non-competition clause, as it is generally not acceptable to include such remuneration in a worker`s salary. Does my employer have to pay me extra money in exchange for a non-compete clause? The judges unanimously allowed an appeal in the case of Egon Zehnder v. Tillman, which made the non-competition clause established by the staffing firm enforceable and clarified how employers should act to establish non-compete rules in employment contracts.
Today, the Labour Law (in force since 2012) sets the minimum remuneration to be paid to workers, namely one third (33%) of the worker`s basic salary during the period of non-competition. Since the Labour Law provides only general rules, the question arises as to whether parties are limited in what they can agree. Judicial practice over the past two decades has played an important role in the development of the non-competition framework and the definition of certain limits. However, it is not always clear to what extent general conclusions can be drawn. . . .