وبلاگ خانه تبدیل شباهنگ مرکز تخصصی تبدیل صدا و تصویر
The duration of solicitation bans generally reflects the duration of a non-compete obligation in an employment contract. twelve months are quite common. However, non-solicitation clauses do not have to be as tightly adapted as non-compete obligations, and the courts have applied longer non-solicitation clauses. It is not clear whether the public policy underlying the new non-compete obligation will affect the applicability of the long-term prohibitions on solicitation. A non-solicitation agreement is only appropriate if it is not broader than necessary to protect an employer`s legitimate business interests. While the courts recognize that employers must protect their legitimate business interests, the courts also recognize an employee`s need to find work. Thus, a solicitation prohibition that imposes an unreasonable burden on a former worker`s ability to find work in the same field could be considered inappropriate. Take, for example, a non-solicitation agreement that prohibits any form of advertising. A court might consider such an agreement to be inappropriate because it is not only too broad, but also harms the free market. Such a broad definition of invitation could make it extremely difficult for an employee to find work for another company or to start their own business in the same field. For this reason, the courts are scrutinizing solicitation prohibitions to ensure that they are appropriate. The evolution of the case-law relating to the prohibition of solicitation of customer clauses logically raises the question of the prohibition of poaching of employee clauses, as it appears in certain commercial or employment contracts.
In this context, please note that on 4 December 2008, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision awarding an employee €۱۵,۰۰۰ in damages as compensation because a potential employer bound by such a clause could not hire him. Specifically, this compensation was awarded because “the employee`s freedom to work had been interrupted without financial compensation.” Patricia Washienko: In the United States, there is no comprehensive national law on agreements, not to compete; each state has its own law. In general, most states allow non-compete obligations as long as they are “reasonable” – that is, reasonable in terms of duration (usually one year or less, but in any case rarely more than two years) and in terms of geographical scope. However, some states (especially California) prohibit or outlaw non-compete obligations, except in very limited circumstances, such as the sale of a business. Given the differences in state laws, it is important for a company to have a lawyer who is familiar with the law of the jurisdiction (state) in which it wishes to issue or enforce a non-compete obligation. If companies want to reduce their risk of exposure to alleged harm by workers indirectly hindered in the choice of employer, it is advisable to be cautious with such clauses until case law has clarified their position on the subject. For its part, the Chamber of Commerce of the Court of Cassation specified that, with regard to such a clause, “only the employee can assert a claim for the problems he may encounter because of a non-solicitation clause that does not contain any financial compensation”. If a non-solicitation clause is fully equivalent to a non-competition clause, a company whose collective agreement provides a high percentage for the anti-competitive financial consideration (often 1/2 or 2/3 of the average gross salary) may be exposed to the following risk: Former employees who have been subject to prohibitions on non-solicitation in the past may claim very large amounts in compensation for the damage, which results from compliance with an illegal clause.
If an employee is asked to enter into a non-solicitation agreement, the employee should determine whether the agreement is appropriate. This is where a competent lawyer can be of great help. If the non-solicitation agreement is too broad or would unduly impede the employee`s ability to work in the same field in the future, it may be possible to negotiate the terms of the non-solicitation agreement to make it more reasonable. An experienced lawyer can also be a great advantage in situations where an employer tries to enforce a non-solicitation agreement against a former employee. Poaching prohibitions are provisions of employment contracts in which the employee does not take with him valuable customers or employees in the event that he leaves the company. A non-solicitation agreement can prevent an employee from accepting customers/customers, employees, or both. Our litigation lawyers in Chicago are familiar with how these documents work. If an employee is asked to enter into a non-solicitation agreement, the employee should determine whether the agreement is appropriate. Such a decision may not be self-evident, where a competent lawyer can be of great help.
An employee who is asked to enter into an inappropriate non-solicitation agreement may be able to negotiate more reasonable terms of the agreement. There is also another type of clause that can be included in a non-solicitation agreement called a “no-shop” clause. According to this clause, the target company undertakes not to obtain or give information to negotiate an agreement with another potential buyer. .
