A company that has an almost permanent relationship with its customers, for example. B doctors or insurance, has an interest in protecting its activities with the client and may prevent an employee from attracting his clients to his new employer. When a worker has knowledge of trade secrets or confidential information, his employer may restrict his or her freedom to work for a competitor in order to protect that information. A clause prohibiting a former employee from operating with a competitor, including activities that do not pose a threat to his or her interests, may be considered too broad to be applicable. Moreover, the non-competition agreement must not impose unreasonable difficulties on the worker. A clause prohibiting the employee from working for a competitor within 10 miles may be acceptable, but a clause prohibiting the employee from working for a competitor in North America cannot be. defines “the federal state not to compete” to include agreements that “financially penalize a former employee” for competitive activities; For example, an enforceable agreement may prevent a salesperson or researcher from holding a job with a competitor for the same position and from putting clients or expertise into their new job. However, an agreement preventing a salesperson or researcher from going to a competitor to work as a mechanic cannot be applicable, as the expertise he will apply in his new workplace has not been acquired in his former workplace and does not pose a threat to the interests of his former employer. Why does a non-competition agreement have to be “supported by a quid pro quo” when both parties sign the agreement? Isn`t contractual freedom enough? Answer: Yes, they are legal, but they will only be enforceable in Illinois if the judge believes that the agreement is appropriate and justified. They therefore do not know in advance whether the non-competition agreement is considered applicable.
But at least I hope that a carefully crafted non-competition agreement will serve as a strong deterrent. SB 3430 leaves some important questions unanswered – two questions that immediately come to mind: includes a “bund, do not compete” with restrictions on customer requests; and what is considered “another fair and reasonable consideration”? SB 3430, however, is the last legislative attempt to govern The Alliances, not to compete in Illinois. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Confederation was invalid and unenforceable because it would exclude the worker from any employment or other relationship with a company acting directly or indirectly in the employer`s affairs. The federal government would prohibit the worker from being employed by a company that also works in the same areas as the employer, whether or not it is a real competitor. In addition, the federal government would prevent the worker from holding any position in another company in the employer sector, and not just a role similar to the same position or position with the employer. The employee, who was a director, argued that the Confederation would even prevent him from working as a janitor in another company in the area. The court agreed and found that “… The Confederation would clearly prevent Dumrauf from playing any more plausible role with another player in the sector, no matter how far away it is from the actual competition with Medix…. Such a ban is unenforceable. The non-competition clause is not applicable because it would have prohibited the worker from working in any capacity for a company in the same company as the employer and would therefore have been an unacceptable restriction of competition in itself.