In areas where client lists are essential, the employer will often try to prevent an employee from “stealing” from customers by applying legal agreements, namely non-competition and non-invitation agreements. The non-acquisition agreement is a less restrictive contract and is narrowly aimed at preventing a worker from recruiting clients from his former employer. Unlike the non-competition agreement, the worker is allowed to work immediately in the same sector and in the same geographical area. Do not use proprietary or confidential information (including processes and know-how), whether it is the company and its customers, their customers and their business customers, nor disclose to third parties (including a new business) and return to the Company, at the end of their activities, all documents and computer files containing such proprietary or confidential information. Courts have generally held non-invitation agreements more favourably because they do not restrict a worker`s right to work. If one balances the legitimate interests of the company, the maintenance and protection of its customers, it is discovered that non-competition prohibitions significantly limit a worker`s ability to look for another job. On the other hand, non-use agreements are generally considered by the courts as appropriate conditions, since the worker is free to continue working in his area of expertise. Non-requirement is one of three types of restrictive agreements, the other two being non-competition and confidentiality agreements (confidentiality agreements). All three try to limit or force someone not to do something, either during the job or after. To be enforceable, they must have appropriate schedules, surfaces and ways of working.
That`s right? The Court`s decisions on competition prohibitions have given rise to time guidelines. For a worker who is required to protect the employer`s confidentiality and trade secrets, the employer and the worker may agree to the inclusion of non-compete clauses in the employment contract or a separate confidentiality agreement. In the event of termination or expiry of the employment contract, the employer pays monthly compensation to the worker during the agreed non-competition period. If the worker does not object to non-competition, he pays damages to the employer as agreed. However, implementation is a burden. Companies that provide for the maintenance of anti-competitive agreements as a potentially costly nuisance may include in their non-competition agreement a provision allowing the former employee to take a customer for reimbursement. This generally assumes that the former employee pays the company a percentage of the costs he collects from the client for a period of several years after the end of the employment. Many courts are in favour of these rules. In Packer, Thomas and Co. v.
Eyster, 126 Ohio App3d. 109, 709 NE2d 922 (1998), the judge found that a refund provision was not prejudicial to the public, since the only parties involved were the former employee and the CPA company. This allows customers to transfer their accounts to any accounting company they have chosen. Whether California courts are required, by the full fact and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, to enforce fair judgments by courts in other states that are personally competent to the defendant, that are contrary to competition, or that run counter to important public interests in California, is an issue that has not yet been decided.  IN NOMBREUX STATES, THE JUSTICE COURT IS AUTORISED to properly treat a non-compete agreement that it deems too broad.