Non-competition obligations are governed by state law and not by federal law; and not all states support non-competition bans. In countries where agreements are supported, the conditions of applicability often vary from state to state. For example, in Florida, the law supports non-competitions, so the facts of your situation, and the state in which you live determine where the agreement is applied against you. One of the major court decisions that discuss the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. of 1998 In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to accept a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. A Maryland employee then went to work for a competitor in California.
When the new California employer sued in the California State Court to have the Confederacy invalidated from not competing, the California court agreed and ruled that the California non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable. Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Act reflects a “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire employees of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers looking for work in California. [Citation required] The term “non-competition agreement,” formally referred to as a “contract” for not competing, tends to cover three aspects of employment: if you can prove that your current or former employer acted illegally or dishonestly towards its customers or asked you to act, you can easily challenge a non-competition agreement because the employer does not want to know that it is doing illegal business. Just be a little tactful instead of threatening if you hold it. When you first worked for your employer and asked you to sign a non-compete agreement, you did so zealously: you wanted the job and you thought that a:) They probably didn`t want to leave, and b:) You had heard that the non-competition prohibitions were largely unenforceable. Now time has passed and you are desperate to move on to bigger and better things, but in the years that followed, you saw management pursue outgoing employees with a vengeance. Are you stuck forever? Do you need to find a new career? Probably not.
Most courts have held that an employer engaged in illegal activity resulting in the departure of a worker cannot impose a non-compete agreement against the worker who has left the country for that reason. What usually happens is that the employer sends a letter to the worker and the new employer, threatens to sue both, and the worker is fired from his new job, even though he has spoken to the new employer about the ability to compete non-compete. Because if you don`t have a contract with the new employer that specifies that you can only be fired for one reason and that competition is known to the employer and is not a cause, Florida is an at-will state. This means that each employer can fire any employee for any reason or reason. While non-competition prohibitions are analyzed according to national law and each state is different, there are several common factors that examine the courts to determine whether a non-competition agreement is useful: they have been denounced without cause. If you were part of a collective dismissal or were fired without doing anything wrong, some (but not all) courts might consider this a good reason to cancel your agreement. What happens in these agreements? A typical non-compete agreement prohibits an employee from working in a competing company after leaving the company.