SIGN UP NOW!
It's FREE!

Create a Profile and Start Networking with HR Professionals
Register Now - It's Free Registration info
 
Member Content
Blogs | Questions | Files | Events | HR Groups | Members
PHR/SPHR Exam Prep Course
HRCI Recertification


  • Upcoming Events
  • Past Events
  • Public Events
Advertise Here

Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements: Guarding the Family Jewels, Part I


Posted by Levey Frisch, Janette at Thursday, 01/03/2013 10:45 am
 
  • Currently 3.2/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 from 24 votes
 
 
Happy 2013! The Emplawyerologist kicks off the new year by continuing its new mini-series on restrictive covenants. Last week’s post provided an overview of restrictive covenants and key provisions. The burning questions for many employers, however, are, when are they enforceable? How broad can the restrictions be? What remedies are available to employers when employees violate their restrictive covenants, also known as “non-competes”? To review one point from last week: there are six states in which restrictive covenants are essentially non-enforceable, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Many of the remaining states are what we call “blue-pencil” or equitable modification states, i.e. states that allow a court to make what we might see as minor edits to otherwise unenforceable provisions in a restrictive covenant rather than striking down the entire non-compete. Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Virginia and Wisconsin, while they will enforce restrictive covenants, are not "blue pencil" states, and do not allow equitable modification. Let’s assume for the moment that you do business in one or more states that will enforce restrictive covenants. What factors do most courts consider to determine whether they will in fact enforce the “non-compete”?

Click here to view the entire post on The Emplawyerologist.


Sitemap   |   Advertise With Us