Make no bones about it, non-compete disputes can be litigious, contentious, and downright nasty. Someone breached another’s trust or loyalty; or stole something valuable from someone else; or didn’t uphold his or her end of the bargain. Battle lines are drawn. Nevertheless, there are codes of civility, professionalism, and rules of law that must be followed. So, you would think that when a court enters an order granting injunctive relief consistent with the parties’ non-compete agreement, the order would be followed, right? Read on. In this sixteenth article of the Series, I discuss a few extreme examples of litigants in non-compete disputes who failed to comply with court orders, resulting in significant monetary damages and other sanctions.
Highly valuable trade secrets, corporate espionage, elaborate schemes to evade detection, and national defense implications. Have I piqued your curiosity? I hope so. In this fifteenth article of The Restricting Covenant series, I discuss two cases that involve individuals and business enterprises charged by the federal government with stealing valuable trade secrets from U.S.-based companies. The stakes are extremely high on all sides.
Let me begin by explaining that this article does not focus on the janitorial profession and whether non-competes in that profession are enforceable. That’s a topic for another day. Instead, this fourteenth article in The Restricting Covenant series discusses a concept that some courts and litigants refer to as the “janitor analogy” or the “janitor test,” when analyzing or illustrating the overbroad scope of a non-compete provision.
In Any Capacity?
The janitor analogy is most often invoked in cases where the employer’s non-compete agreement prohibits a former employee from being employed or affiliated with a competitor “in any capacity” or “in any manner.”
The acronyms “NLRB” or “NLRA” rarely appear in articles about enforcement of private sector non-compete agreements. Until recently. Dun dun dun! (Que the “dramatic gopher video” on YouTube).
In this thirteenth article of “The Restricting Covenant” series, I discuss two cases in which the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) determined that an employer’s enforcement of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements violated Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Section 8(a) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to maintain workplace rules that would reasonably tend to chill employees in exercising their Section 7 rights to engage in or refrain from concerted activities protected under the NLRA.
If you’ve ever purchased an automobile, you know that haggling for a good deal is either the best, or the worst, part of the car-buying experience. That new car smell is pretty memorable too. No matter the aroma or the final purchase price, however, in order to drive home in that shiny new vehicle, you ultimately must agree to give the dealership a certain amount of money, known in legal terms as “consideration.” This concept of consideration is equally important in the non-compete world, as explored in this twelfth article in The Restricting Covenant Series, through the lens of a hypothetical car salesman.
A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division is a glaring reminder for employers in New Jersey and elsewhere to review their employee handbooks, manuals and other codes of conduct periodically to ensure that their employment at-will disclaimer language is clear and prominent in compliance with the seminal decision on this issue, Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. 99 N.J. 302, modified, 101 N.J. 10 (1985), and its progeny.