The landscape of the non-compete clause is changing rapidly in many states, and some courts are reluctant to impose restrictive alliances- even carefully designed. Nevertheless, the decision of the eighth circle should remind companies that want to hire that non-competitors still have teeth. These agreements contribute to uncertainty, they are generally subject to state law and the rules of application can vary considerably from state to state. For example, California courts, with a few exceptions, will not impose a non-compete ban on outgoing workers, and a Massachusetts law imposes strict limits on restrictive post-employment agreements – perhaps giving it second place status as the most difficult jurisdiction to enforce non-compete bans. The result is a variety that is difficult to understand, and that applies nationally. The complainant CRST, a long-distance trucking company, had a training program under which he advanced the cost of obtaining a commercial driver`s licence (“CDL”) for his future drivers. Crst then paid the runners a reduced rate to partially recover the costs of this training program. THE CRST contracts contained non-competitive provisions under which drivers agreed not to work for a competitor for a period of ten months, which was probably sufficient time for CRST to resume training costs. However, if the industry knows that a particular company requires all employees to sign the agreement, then you have a problem being hired by the next company. CRST offers a car school in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for new drivers. During the course, students are invited to sign employment contracts that require them to work for a period of time – for example. B 10 months – for crst trucking after completing their schooling.
Crst then deducts the pay cheques of these drivers to allegedly reimburse himself for the training he proposes. If a student tries to get out of his non-compete clause, he must reimburse thousands of “training” fees. From a defensive point of view, air carriers should consider the consequences of hiring a worker who is subject to a permanent non-competition obligation to a former employer. This analysis should include an analysis of the possibility of effectively using potential personnel as limited by ongoing alliances and the costs and distraction of being involved in a possible competitive action. The design behind these agreements is based on whether you have “business secrets” that you can possibly share with another company. They are in fact very difficult for employers to attract because many courts consider them to be a mere impediment to a new job. They are huge in distribution and companies go with them because they don`t hire u, unless you sign it. They are in all BS.
Just another way for companies to stay for a while. Any decent lawyer could break the standard competition clause, but very few people fight against it. Lawyers suspect that CRST`s behavior is a strict and illegal commercial practice against poaching, which significantly reduces the growth of drivers` careers and the ability to earn competitive wages. Alumni who have signed a non-competition clause with the CRST may lose opportunities for better pay, higher benefits and higher positions that may be offered to them by other companies. In this context of difficult implementation, air carriers should respect if there is a specific judicial framework and strive to conclude agreements that meet only their specific needs. Implementation will depend on an air carrier`s ability to convince a court that it is voluntarily present in the development of a narrow agreement to protect a legitimate and protective interest. When application problems occur, they usually lead from overtaking: Personally, I would never agree to sign such an agreement On appeal, the eight circuit found that