It is understandable that many employers want to limit or eliminate the competitiveness of all or part of the key work with the employer, regardless of whether the job is separated by consensual separation or dismissal.1 Some essential concepts must be taken into account at the beginning (when entering into a contract) and at the end of an employment relationship (to determine whether and how these agreements should be applied). Non-competitive agreements are generally applied by the courts when they are time-appropriate and instead of the right and do not unduly restrict the former worker`s right to a job. It goes without saying that the different parties have different conceptions of what constitutes a “reasonable” restriction. Legal experts argue that courts are much more likely to side with the contractor when he does not go overboard when he imposes restrictions in the following areas: non-competition obligations can be violated in different ways depending on the circumstances and circumstances of the employment contract. Below, you will find a list of the usual violations of non-compete rules: Yet entrepreneurs do not always win lawsuits against ex-employees who plunder in this area. In some cases, they lose for the simple reason that the business owner never identified the company`s confidential or business information. An ex-employee is not allowed to steal confidential information or trade secrets identified as such. However, the ownership of information developed in the context of business procedures must make a clear distinction between what belongs to the employee and what belongs to the company. Often, the doctor is allowed to practice within the parameters of the geographic area or the period when he “buys” the clause (or the potential employer). This is desirable if the adequacy of the non-competition clause is not clear and both parties want to avoid the cost of opposability.

Otherwise, if the doctor violates the non-competition clause, the former employer will normally first seek a cease-and-desetrial action prohibiting the doctor`s new employment, and then follow with the monetary policy damage requirement resulting from the doctor`s offence. However, a uniform approach can be found in the not too distant future. While the various national non-competition regulations are by no means a new phenomenon, there is now reason to believe that the federal government could legislate in this area to promote uniformity. According to its website, the Federal Trade Commission held a public workshop on January 9, 2020 to examine whether there is sufficient legal and empirical economic support to adopt a Commission rule that would limit the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts between employers and workers and apply to employers in the United States. At this time, however, it is not clear how the federal government could harmonize the state`s different approaches to the permitted scope of trade restrictions under national and comprehensive regulation and whether such regulation would withstand judicial review.