In extreme cases, a non-compete clause prohibiting an employee from competing anywhere in the United States or around the world is probably unenforceable. It is almost depressing and inappropriate to try to prohibit a professional from using his skills everywhere. (However, depending on the facts, it can sometimes be useful to prohibit competition across the country.) On the other hand, if the non-competition clause only prohibits the worker from forming a quarter of a kilometre from the employer`s business, that restriction is likely to reasonably protect the legitimate interests of the employer. For example, it seems unfair to allow a former employer to set up exactly the same business next door and steal the former employer`s clients. A cicero group study, completed in February 2017, surveyed 2,000 employees and led focus groups of potential employers and investment firms. The study indicated that more of them felt that the law would promote growth (354) and promote entrepreneurship (369) than those who thought it would hurt employment growth (139). A majority (1141) felt that the law protected the ability of workers to use their skills and work in their chosen occupation, while a total of 353 felt that the law should have gone further and eliminated non-competition prohibitions altogether. However, a fairly significant number (407) felt that the law should have allowed a longer period for non-competition prohibitions in certain circumstances, such as. B.dem as the protection of business secrets or proprietary private procedures. As usual, we are here to help. Let us know if you have any questions or if you would like us to design a non-competition for you or to verify your existing non-compete agreement. This section is only for informational purposes and is not legal advice.
Please contact a professional about your specific situation. The new status goes hand-in-hand with the restrictions already set by Utah jurisprudence. For example, non-competition prohibitions in Utah must be relatively narrow to protect only the legitimate interests of the employer. The factors considered by the courts to determine the appropriateness of a non-competition clause are: (i) geographic area restrictions; (ii) the nature of the worker`s obligations (for example. (b) that the worker provides special or unique services to the company; and (iii) the nature of the interests that the employer seeks to protect, such as trade secrets, the value of its business or an exceptional investment in the initial or continuing training of the worker. See Robbins v. Finlay, 645 pp. 2d 623 (1982). The adequacy of a non-competition clause is determined on a case-by-case basis. System Concepts, Inc.