Hiring An Employee Who Has A Non-Compete Agreement
A party does not interfere unduly in a contract when the party invokes in “good faith” a legally protected interest in itself because it considers that its interest may be compromised or otherwise destroyed by the performance of the contract or transaction.  Justification is generally a factual question. It is interesting to note, however, that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that an accused`s assertion of solicitor-client privilege as the basis for refusing to disclose why he believed a non-competition clause was not applicable was “fatal” to his assertion that he had a good faith belief that non-competition was not applicable.  What is a “reasonable” non-competition agreement?  Sanborn Mfg. Co. v. Currie, 500 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. Ct. App.1993); also see TestQuest, Inc. v. France, No C0-02-783, 2002 WL 196287 (Minn. Ct.
App. August 27, 2002) (compliance with the “Mid-Stream” agreement that allows the employee to continue working and obtain additional stock options representing sufficient consideration). Employers benefit from a non-compete clause because they prevent a former employee from sharing industry experience, knowledge, trade secrets, customer lists, potential customers, strategic plans and other confidential and employer-owned information with competitors. That depends. Courts often consider these factors: territorial scope, duration, nature of restricted tasks and consideration – in relation to others. For example, a large geographic area – say an entire state – may be more likely to be applicable if the duration of the restriction is short – say a month. On the other hand, a broad geographical scope associated with a long period of prohibition by a court is rather unenforceable. In examining the size of the space, the courts check the services provided by the employer. As a general rule, the court does not allow any non-competition clause preventing a worker from working in an area where the employer does not make transactions. If the former employer is able to prove all of the above information, the rental employer may, in the appropriate circumstances, be held liable for the former employer`s loss of earnings resulting from the breach, the costs incurred to replace the worker and the costs of its lawyers incurred in the litigation. In addition, in the early stages, even before the litigation begins, the former employer may seek an injunction or injunction to try to prevent the employer from hiring the employee in the face of the non-competition clause. Whenever a non-competition clause is at stake, employers should consult with a competent lawyer to assess the former employer`s remedies and balance potential benefits with potential risks to determine whether recruitment is a risk worth taking.
OLDCO may claim unlawful interference against NEWCO for breach of a restrictive employment contract.  The elements of a remedy for unlawful interference in a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract by the disruptive party; (3) the intentional attribution of an offence; (4) lack of justification; and (5) damage.  NEWCO may also be required to compensate OLDCO for the legal costs incurred by OLDCO in a dispute to enforce the non-competition agreement.  A no-competition agreement covering the building blocks of the actual description and responsibility of the position is more applicable. A non-competition agreement directly related to the possession of confidential and proprietary information, which, if discovered, could seriously harm the commercial interests of the former employer, is also more applicable. The second group of jurisdictions is only prepared to apply forfeiture provisions if they pass a adequacy review.