One of the major court decisions that discuss the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. of 1998 In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to accept a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. A Maryland employee then went to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in the California State Court to have the Confederacy invalidated from not competing, the California court agreed and ruled that the California non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable. Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Act reflects a “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire employees of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers looking for work in California.
[Citation required] Consideration of the appropriateness of an appeal must be done quickly. This delay undermines the argument that the former employee`s current actions are actively impairing the employer`s activities and may, in rare cases, lead the former employee to take legal action seeking a court statement that non-competition prohibitions are unenforceable. The bid immediately protects the employer`s interests and ensures that the employer is the first to be submitted. The basic idea that was expressed a long time ago remains: “An alliance not to compete is applicable only when it is necessary to protect a legitimate commercial interest, which is reasonably limited in time and space and in accordance with the public interest.”  In addition, there is a strong argument that a worker dismissed for refusing to sign an unreasonable contract may be entitled to dismissal against the employer in violation of that public order. The results of these public policy claims vary from state to state. A company`s investment in its employees, customer relationships and confidential information is too valuable to face unfair competition. MacElree Harvey`s lawyers can help you check your non-competes and develop agreements tailored to your business needs. To agree on a consultation, contact Harry J.
DiDonato at 610.840.0237, Robert A. Burke at 610.840.0211 or a member of our business law team. Almost all non-competition prohibitions are decided in the context of an application for a referral (ORR) or an injunction. The courts decide whether to prevent the worker from performing competitive activities and may pay damages, including, in some cases, legal costs. When an employer sues an employee to enforce the non-competition clause, it can be costly to go to trial, but most complaints are resolved and a negotiated solution is developed between the parties. Under Texas law, “a non-compete agreement is applicable if it is, as of the date of the agreement, a side effect of another applicable agreement, to the extent that it contains temporal and geographic areas and the extent of the activity to be limited, which are appropriate and do not show greater deference than is necessary to protect the commercial interest of the promised.”  Physicians are subject to special rules, including the fact that a physician cannot be prohibited from “continuing to care for and treat a patient during an acute illness, even after the termination of the contract or employment.”  While competition bans are often necessary to protect an employer`s legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets and the goodwill of customers, many employers are wondering, in the face of the unprecedented crisis of COVID 19, whether they can impose non-compete bans on laid-off workers.