3. Why do some Illinois courts argue that mere “rental” may not be a sufficient legal consideration to support a non-compete agreement? Although all other parts of this site concern Illinois and/or federal law, there has been a recent case in Wisconsin that is very interesting on this issue (and it would be good for Illinois to follow the example of this case). In Manitowoc v. Lanning (January 2018), the employer imposed a non-demand on workers under a worker`s employment contract. This provision prohibits the worker from asking an employee of the employer to terminate his employment or to accept a job with a competitor, supplier or client of the employer. The employer claimed that the worker had committed acts contrary to the non-requirement of the labour provisions. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Confederation was invalid and unenforceable because it would exclude the worker from any employment or other relationship with a company acting directly or indirectly in the employer`s affairs. The federal government would prohibit the worker from being employed by a company that also works in the same areas as the employer, whether or not it is a real competitor. In addition, the federal government would prevent the worker from holding any position in another company in the employer sector, and not just a role similar to the same position or position with the employer. The employee, who was a director, argued that the Confederation would even prevent him from working as a janitor in another company in the area. The court agreed and found that “… The Confederation would clearly prevent Dumrauf from playing any more plausible role with another player in the sector, no matter how far away it is from the actual competition with Medix….
Such a ban is unenforceable. The non-competition clause is not applicable because it would have prohibited the worker from working in any capacity for a company in the same company as the employer and would therefore have been an unacceptable restriction of competition in itself. Thus, the court granted the worker`s request to dismiss the employer`s complaint on the grounds that the federal state was broad enough to be inopportune and unenforceable on his face. The court also refused to “give blue” (edit) the agreement because the scope is so broad that it is “manifestly unfair”. Fortunately, a positive development for staff is that a recent decision (AssuredPartners, Inc. v. Schmitt, IL Appellate Court, October 27, 2015) decided that non-compete clauses built to scare (z.B – rudeness) are totally inoperable and cannot be retained by a blaustift clause. In this context, an enforceable agreement may, for example, prevent a salesperson or researcher from accepting a job with a competitor for the same position and from putting his clients or expertise into his or her new job. However, an agreement preventing a salesperson or researcher from going to a competitor to work as a mechanic cannot be applicable, as the expertise he will apply in his new workplace has not been acquired in his former workplace and does not pose a threat to the interests of his former employer. Answer: Yes, it is often done. Non-competition agreements often do not have invitations that the employee will not ask the company`s customers, employees (or independent contractors) to leave the company and go elsewhere. Non-injunction clauses are sometimes drafted instead of a non-competition clause, because the courts consider them more favourable than non-competitions. (Non-invitation clauses must also be supported by a consideration.) First, a non-competition agreement must have an appropriate scope.
This depends on the protection of a legitimate business interest, the absence of unreasonable harshness on the employee and the violation of public order.