Library Search

FAQ   Summaries of Law   Dictionary

• Will Your Non-Compete Agreement Withstand a Court Challenge ( July 2006 )
  Douglas M. Kennedy of

  Non-compete agreements have become more common in the workplace. A recent Franklin County Court of Appeals decision should have businesses reviewing these documents to make sure they will withstand scrutiny from the court system. In a case involving Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) and a former salesman, John Curran, the Court concluded that unless an employee possesses confidential or proprietary documents or trade secrets, or uses that information to solicit the former employer' customers, non-compete agreements will be difficult to enforce in court

• How Do Contractual Relationships Affect a Firm's Ability To Compete? ( May 2004 )
  Reginald L. Snyder of Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.

  Identifying, pursuing, and securing new business and a skilled work force are essential to the growth and prosperity of any business. However, your ability to compete for either may be directly affected by contractual relationships that your "target" customer or employee may have with your competitor. The issue is interference with contracts – what's legal and what's not.

• Massachusetts: Material Change in Employment Relationship Could Invalidate Prior Restrictive Covenant ( February 2005 )
  Christopher J. Perry and Laurie Drew Hubbard of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

  For years, commentators have viewed Massachusetts as neutral territory for the enforcement of noncompete agreements. An employer’s need to protect its most important assets, including the company’s strategic vision, customer base, and trade secrets, has been delicately balanced against employees’ desire to shift alliances in an increasingly transient work environment. Whereas some states, such as New York, passively accept noncompetes, other states are outwardly hostile.

• New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Employee's Termination For Refusing To Enter Into Non-Compete Agreement Is Not Actionable Because It Does Not Violate Public Policy ( June 2004 )
  Gary S. Prish of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

  In an important decision favoring employers, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employee did not have a cause of action for unlawful retaliatory discharge under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act , even though she was fired for refusing to enter into an agreement containing post-employment restrictions. While New Jersey employers may still condition an employee's continued employment on his or her agreement to be bound by post-employment restrictions, <i>Maw</i> reaffirms that employers must continue to be cautious in drafting such agreements.

• Mergers & Acquisitions: Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants In the Acquisition Context ( February 2004 )
  Roy A. Ginsburg of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP

  Care should be given to evaluating whether postemployment restrictive covenants will be enforceable after an acquisition. At a minimum, this evaluation should encompass the issue of whether the restrictive covenant has an assignment clause, and the five other key questions listed in this article.

• Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down "No-Hire" Provision Governing Temporary Employees ( August 2003 )
  Jeffrey O. Davis and Jeffrey  Morris of Quarles & Brady LLP

  &rdquo;No hire&rdquo; agreements have come under scrutiny because of their effect on individual employees, who are essentially bound—or at least greatly affected—by a contract to which they were never a party and which they may not have even known existed.

• Potential Radical Expansion of New Jersey's "Whistleblower" Statute ( May 2003 )
  John E. Macdonald of Stark & Stark, Attorney at Law

  In the recent Appellate Division decision in Karol Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division Docket No. A-3606-01T3) (April 16, 2003), the court appears to have dramatically expanded the scope of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA") N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, and may have created a significant problem for employers that generally require the execution of restrictive covenants by their employees.

• Employment Law Alert--March 2003 ( March 2003 )
  Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, P.A.

  Articles include Virginia Limits Scope Of Non-Compete Agreements, Disability Case Highlights Need For Engaging In Interactive Process, Requiring General Diagnosis To Suppoprt Sick Leave Request May Violate ADA, and more.

• Enforceable Covenants Not To Compete ( February 2003 )
  Wayne S. Moskowitz of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP

  Employers frequently require their employees to execute employment agreements that contain covenants not to compete. Each state has its own laws regarding whether such covenants may be enforced, and under what circumstances. Minnesota's law is fairly consistent with the laws of most other states.

• Thanks, Boss. Goodbye… ( December 2001 )
  Daniel C. Urban of Arter & Hadden LLP

  Have you ever considered what effect the loss of a key employee to a competitor might have on your business. Don't think it will happen to your company? Think again. It will.