Non-compete agreements are usually found in employments contracts in where a company wants to prevent their employees from working for a competing company. The focus of the non-compete agreement is to protect a company’s business interest and trade secrets but, a non-compete covenant must be laboriously drafted to follow the state’s regulation in order to be enforced in court. There is an enormous discrepancy when it comes to cases that deal with non-compete agreements since it deals with revising if the non-compete agreement was lawful to begin with; courts do not have a consistent approach to this. A lot of companies request the courts to enforce the covenant but, in most cases, the agreement is unenforceable due to the unethical and unlawful …show more content…
provisions on the agreement. There are many factors that courts look at to determine if the non-compete agreement should be enforced. For example, they examine how long the non-compete agreement in force, or if the employer had some legitimate interest it is protecting. In the following cases, we will look and discuss the multiple factors. Wolf V. Barrie In this case, we see that Wolf is appealing the decision of the circuit court that enforced a temporary injunction against him from practicing Veterinary Ophthalmology. In 1992, Wolf began working at “The Animal Eye Clinic” which was a division of P.A Barrie. At the start of the employment contract, Wolf signed a non-compete agreement that in a summarized form stated that Wolf, ” for [his] own purpose or as an independent contractor, consultant, partner of joint venturer, or as an officer, director, stockholder, agent, employee or salesman for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity, or otherwise; should not engage in the practice of Veterinary Ophthalmology medicine or solicit, disclose name of any patients subject to a of 12 months and maximum of 60 months”. Wolf stayed true to the covenant throughout his years working for The Animal Eye Clinic but, in 2002 Barrie, P.A sold the assets of the clinic to Florida Veterinary Specialist (FVS). Wolf stayed with FVS but began working as an independent contractor and did not enter into a non-compete agreement. In October 2002, Wolf left FVS and began practicing in his own clinic. A month later, FVS and Barrie, P.A rescind the purchase agreements and Barrie, P.A filed a lawsuit to enforce the non-compete agreement that was signed by Wolf in 1992. As stated earlier Barrie, P.A won the case in the circuit court but Wolf did not hesitate to appeal. In the appellate court, it was examined if Barrie, P.A had legitimate interest in protecting against competition. The appellate court explains that non-compete agreements are governed by section 542.33, which the pertinent portion of that statute states that “employees may agree with his employer to refrain from engaging in a similar business” but, a very important part of the statute also states, “so long as such employer continues to carry on a like business” which is an important issue that was discussed in the appellate court. Another issue that was heavily discussed in this case is If the rescind of the contract should have resurrected Barrie’s agreements with Wolf. After deliberation, the decision of the appellate court was to dissolve the temporary injunction place on Wolf. The appellate court states in the opinion that Barrie, P.A cannot enforce the 1992 covenant against Wolf. Barrie, P.A had no interest in protecting against competition because when Wolf opened his new practice, Barrie P.A no longer operated as Animal Eye Clinic. The appellate court cites a previous case, Hess V. Gebhard that explains “an employer which abandons its business many not enforce a covenant not to compete”. Also, the court described that when Barrie and FVS rescinded their sale agreement, it did not resurrect the non-compete agreement between Wolf and Barrie. In result, Wolf was allowed to practice freely in his own business. As discussed previously, non-compete agreements raise a lot of ethical issues from both the employer and the employee. In this case, I do not think there was an ethical issue from the employee, Wolf. The employee honored the covenant while Barrie was the owner of the business, it wasn’t until after Barrie sold the business that Wolf decided to open his own practice. Wolf did not violate the non-compete agreement because he was not restricted by one at the time. On the other hand, just from reading the excerpt of the covenant, I believe that it exceeded the scope allowable by the law. The agreement states that Wolf was not able to compete or to work for a competitor for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 60 months which is absurd in my opinion. Florida Statute 542.335 states “a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration” and just the minimum of the agreement is already pushing the limits set by the law. Lastly, I do believe that it was unethical for Barrie to file to enforce the non-compete agreement. For me, it was surprising that they essentially tried to enforce the agreement; It’s like if you give something away and then moments later, you demand the person to give it back to you. It is unethical for a big-name corporation to bully and restrain somebody from earning a living; I completely agree with the decision of the Appellate court. Hapney V. Central Garage, Inc. As I was reading many cases that dealt with non-compete agreements, I couldn’t fail to notice that almost all of them would cite and based their decision on Hapney V.
Central Garage, Inc. It was a challenging opinion to read since this case is old and, at that time, no Florida court had addressed the precise issue presented. The facts of the case are that Central Garage DBA Gulfcoast is a corporation that performs installations, repair and maintenance of auto air conditioners and auto accessories. On the other side, Hapney worked in many auto repair shops in the Tampa area where he learned to install and repair auto air conditioning systems. In 1988, he started working for Gulfcoast, where he entered into a non-compete agreement. The agreement stated the following: “I further agree that for a period of three years following the termination of my employment I will not offer, as an agent, employee, owner, or distributor, similar products or services on behalf of a competitor of the Company on the west coast of Florida from Crystal River to Naples or inland 100 miles.” A year after working with Gulfcoast, Hapney willingly ended his employment with Gulfcoast and a month later, Gulfcoast filed a lawsuit to enforce the covenant not to compete in where the trial court granted an injunction. As stated earlier, at the time of the case, there wasn’t many decisions in which the judge can cite and base his decision on. The judge for this case had to look for cases in other states to get an idea of cases with a similar issue, which makes it a tough case to decide on. Some of the issues that the appellate court focused on is that Hapney did not receive significant training on installing and repairing automobile air conditioning systems, he had no significant contacts with Gulfcoast’s customers, and he did not acquire trade secrets from Gulfcoast. These were three issues that were heavily discussed on the opinion and it amazes the kind of detail that they were covered with. The
appellate court states that if a company wants to enforce a non-compete agreement based on providing training and education to an employee then that training and education must be “extraordinary”. Extraordinary is defined in this opinion as “going beyond what is usual, regular, common, or customary in the industry in which the employee is employed’. The facts of this case explain that Hapney already had experience in installing air-conditioning systems in automobiles and that he did not receive “extraordinary” training in that field while working with Gulfcoast. After a long trial, the Appellate court decided that “Gulfcoast failed to plead or prove a legitimate business interest to be protected as the foundation of Hapney’s covenant not to compete” and the injunction was removed. The decision was also based on the fact that employers may not enforce a non-compete agreement simply to eliminate competition, there must be a legitimate business interest and in this case there really wasn’t any as Hapney did not hold any trade secrets or customer’s information. The ethical issues in this case is that Hapney did violate and break his non-compete agreement but, I also believe that the non-compete agreement was unethical to begin with. There was no reason for Gulfcoast to force Hapney on signing a non-compete agreement. I understand when it is an employer that deals with trade secrets or sensitive information but Hapney, did not has access to none of that. The non-compete agreement was also very lengthy, for a period of 3 years, exceeding the scope of the law. I agree with the decision of the appellate court; nobody should be denied the right to work and earn a living.
In the case on part of the NA there was not adequate consideration because at the time of the hiring Cohn had not discussed the non-compete covenant with Blackwell. Instead Cohn had approached Blackwell a month after he had hired her and stated that in order to make the “lawyers happy” she should sign the paper immediately as it was just a normal procedure (311). Due to this reasoning it appears that Blackwell has a stronger case as she can argue that there was a lack on consideration therefore, the non- compete clause is not an
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Tinker v. Des Moines School Area is a case about representative discourse. The Vietnam War which endured from 1955 until 1974, was a fight amongst North and South Vietnam, North Vietnam needed to join the nation under socialism. South Vietnam opposed with the assistance from America. Before the finish of 1965, there were a great many American officers battling in the war.
I believe that the expansion of prisoners’ rights, since the famous Cooper v. Plate (1964) case, has been a great thing. For a long time prisoners were treated like they were not a person, like they were the filth of this earth. They had no rights and were not offered any type of protection within the correctional system. With the Cooper v. Plate case, came the law that the prisoners’ rights would be protected by the constitution. This also led to prisoners being able to file lawsuits against state officials who may be violating their rights, and their overall treatment within the correctional system. These were luxuries that prisoners had not had before. They were not given the basic human rights, nor were their rights protected by the constitution. No one had truly advocated for prisoner rights, until this case. This case paved the way for prisoner rights and the humane treatment for all.
Cooperton alleged a bare procedural violation that is insufficient to satisfy the concrete injury portion of the injury-in-fact requirement for standing.
The case of Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction and whether or not it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Burger King, is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are located in Miami. The defendant, John Rudzewicz, was a resident of Michigan and a principal of a Michigan franchise. Rudzewicz, as a franchisee owner, had been given a license to use Burger King’s name and logo (trademarks) to operate a Burger King in Michigan. The contract between the franchisor and franchisee stated that the franchisor relationship (contract) is under the control of Florida. Other provisions of the contract include required monthly payments of fees and royalties to Miami headquarters, and all major decisions and problems had to be communicated with headquarters. In addition, the franchisee had to conduct business at a leased restaurant facility for 20 years. However, the defendant failed to fulfill franchisee obligations by not keeping up with his monthly payments of fees and royalties that he owed to Burger King in Florida. As a result, Burger King sued for a diversity suit against Rudzewicz in an effort to get back the money that they were owed. Burger King claimed a breach of contract, specifically the “Franchise Agreement”, between Burger King (the franchisor) and Rudzewicz (the franchisee). The case eventually made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court (Case Briefs).
As an employee, I would argue that a covenant- not- to- compete must not unjustifiably burden the employee’s right to make a living. This means that the agreement must be reasonable in its scope and duration.
...ur; in such cases, competition authorities must act to fight unlawful practices that are detrimental for the economic welfare.
This case exhibits that competition law should be applicable to all the countries such that the competition regulations are not violated and the companies who involves them in wrongdoings just to protect their position must be aware of the law. This case also gave lesson to other companies that when they sign any agreement the law should be kept in mind. Otherwise, they will be heavily fined by the jurisdiction. However, Canada has now international cooperation agreements with the competition authorities in many other countries, including the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand.
A non competition agreement in an employment contract is a contract between the employee and employer that says the employee cannot work for competitors of the employer for a certain amount of time after the employee has left the company. The best way to determine if the courts have something enforceable is with this question, does the “agreement reasonably balance the employer’s legitimate business interests with the employee’s freedom to choose his or her employment” (Fryberger). These agreements are here to protect the employer’s confidential information and most importantly, the entirety of the business. These non competition agreements help keep the employer in business, but there are certain circumstances that the courts will not enforce these agreements, such as if the agreement is too unreasonable and does not allow the individual to make a living, this could mean the duration of time they are restricted for and/or restrictions on where they can’t work in that geographic
Relkin J. (2006) discusses the concern of employers on former employees as follows; “Many people are required to sign NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) and non-compete clauses in employment contracts, legal documents that restrict their ability to share information with other future employers even to the point of disallowing them to join certain companies or continue to participate in a particular