The extent to which non-competition obligations are authorized by law varies by jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, the State of California invalidates non-competition prohibitions for all shareholders, except shareholders, when selling commercial interests.  Louisiana, for example, has long imposed strict form and substantive requirements on non-competitive provisions in employment contracts. They must be limited to two years, specifically list parishes or communities where competitive activity is limited, and limit competition only where the former employer actually operates. Other states, Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts, have begun to take a more worker-friendly approach to Louisiana`s competition contracts, limiting situations in which an employer can legally restrict a former employee`s trade. In addition to the various states that act, there have been several attempts to pass a federal law that, in one way or another, would limit non-competition bans only to higher-wage workers. While these attempts failed, the Federal Trade Commission held a public workshop earlier this year on whether to use its regulatory authority to implement national restrictions on the use of non-competition agreements. The FTC`s decision is expected before the end of the year. Update: You can read an in-depth discussion about California, non-compete clauses, choice clauses and forum selection clauses on the Antitrust Attorney blog. To learn more about the evolution of the non-competition movement, click here. This trend is expected to continue this year, fuelled in part by rising unemployment rates, job shortages and the economic slowdown caused by the co-19 pandemic. Under Section 27 of the Contracts Act of 1872, any agreement that prevents a person from practising a legitimate occupation, commercial or commercial activity is null and void.  However, Pakistani courts have in the past made decisions in favour of such restrictive covenants, as the restrictions are “reasonable”.
 The definition of “appropriate” depends on the time, geographic location and designation of the worker. In the case of Exide Pakistan Limited vs. Abdul Wadood, 2008 CLD 1258 (Karachi), the High Court of Sindh found that the adequacy of the clause would vary from case to case and depend primarily on the length and extent of geographical territory Whether non-compete clauses are applicable to low-will employees whose employment has been dismissed without reason.   Non-competition prohibitions in the state of Colorado are generally undated, unless they fall within a few selected exceptions.  These exceptions include “a) any contract to purchase and sell a business or the assets of a business; (b) any contract relating to the protection of trade secrets; (c) any contractual provision to reimburse the training costs of a worker who has served an employer for less than two years; and (d) executives, executives, executives and employees, who represent professional staff for executives and executives.  When the statute came into force, Colorado`s approach to regulating non-compete agreements was a unique approach.  In Virginia, the courts weigh the function (1), (2) the geographic scope and (3) the duration of the CNC against the legitimate business interests of the employer to determine its suitability.  In addition, NCCs are acceptable only if they prevent the worker from competing directly with the employer and must not involve activities in which the employer is not active.  Virginia courts will generally not attempt to revise or impose a stricter restriction in a non-competition game.
- No categories