FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• Will Your Non-Compete Agreement Withstand a Court Challenge ( July 2006 )
  

  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

• Five Things to Remember in Florida Non-Compete Injunctions ( April 2006 )
  

  There are now different legal standards governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants in Florida, depending upon the period of time in which they were executed. Since the legal standards are quite different, they create "traps for the unwary."

• How Do Contractual Relationships Affect a Firm's Ability To Compete? ( May 2004 )
  

  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.

• How Not to Hire Employees from a Competitor ( May 2005 )
  

  A recent million dollar plus judgment highlights the importance of hiring people for their skills and not for their confidential business information especially when hiring employees working for direct competitors.

• The Human Face of Fraud ( June 2005 )
  

  Dan Kerr had a towering ego. That was one of the reasons he was the top salesperson with Forrest Machinery Ltd., a medium-sized company that sold heavy equipment in Northern Ontario . But that same egocentricity was also the source of his downfall subsequent to an investigation of suspected wrong-doing at the company that had employed Kerr for almost two decades.

• Massachusetts: Material Change in Employment Relationship Could Invalidate Prior Restrictive Covenant ( February 2005 )
  

  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 )
  

  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 )
  

  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 )
  

  &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 )
  

  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.