Too many employees who have signed a non-compete agreement fail to take notice that they have agreed to be sued in another state. These provisions are known as “forum selection clauses.”
The more non-compete matters I review and litigate the more certain I am that geographically based non-competition covenants should be per se unenforceable.
“A recent study by Shepherd Law Group shows that noncompete litigation nationwide has continued to trend upward, despite a slowing…
A Boston law firm,Beck Reed Riden, has developed a chart that outlines the law of non-competes in all 50 states. It is pretty good tool and an easy way to get some basic information about non-compete law.
In Bimbo Sues the Muffin Man, I briefly discussed the inevitable disclosure case filed by Bimbo Bakeries against a former…
One of the concerns for people who have signed a non-compete is that a court will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or an injunction. Rule 65 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure governs TROs and injunctions.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a new non-compete case, which overturned a lower court decision enforcing a non-compete after modifying (i.e., “blue penciling”) its overly broad provisions.
Under South Carolina law and the law of most states, non-competes which are a general restraint of trade are void, while that founded upon valid consideration and reasonable in scope are valid.
Several posts on this blog have focused on the inevitable disclosure doctrine, which seeks to further erode an employee’s power to quit and work elsewhere. Nucor v. Bell is an unreported decision applying SC law (2008) in which U.S. District Court Judge David Norton f used the inevitable disclosure doctrine to grant injunctive relief against the former employee.
Okay. I confess: I have been really busy (what a blessing) and have not had a chance to write much.…