In order to enter into agreements that may unduly restrict workers` ability to change jobs, the FTC Chairman is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC`s statutory regulatory authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to limit the unfair use of non-compete obligations and other clauses or agreements. which may unfairly restrict the mobility of workers. Minnesota non-compete attorney V. John Ella has represented clients in the drafting, enforcement, and defense of non-compete obligations and other restrictive agreements for more than 25 years, and writes frequently about nonconpetition reform efforts. It is available at 612 455 6237 or jella@trepanierlaw.com. Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A. is a Minnesota law firm based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. On the other hand, if a Stillwater company employs a specific vendor who has all the confidential information about the employer`s offer and the employer`s non-compete obligation simply prohibits it from recruiting one of the employer`s clients for 18 months after hiring, such a non-compete obligation would likely be found to be enforceable. The non-compete obligation is narrowly designed to simply prohibit the employee from convincing customers to whom his former employer introduced him to switch to a competing company. While Minnesota courts generally dismiss non-compete obligations and consider these claims from employers, an appropriate and necessary non-compete code may be enforceable. As noted in a 1997 appeals court case, Minnesota employers can use non-compete obligations to protect customer goodwill, confidential information, trade secrets, and customer contact.

Trade secret and confidentiality agreements (also known as „non-disclosure agreements“) can be used to protect protected information and are not as suspicious. First, Minnesota courts will review the facts of each case to determine whether a non-compete code is valid and enforceable. The first thing a court concludes is whether the employer provided the employee with reasonable consideration for the non-compete obligation. Consideration means that the employee received something in exchange for signing the non-compete obligation. If the non-compete obligation is concluded at the beginning of the employment relationship, the promise of employment is considered an appropriate consideration to make the agreement valid. If the non-compete obligation is entered into after the start of the employment relationship, it is only valid if the employer has provided additional consideration that would be additional money or other benefit to which the employee was not otherwise entitled. Non-compete agreements are usually presented to employees first as part of a larger employment contract, with the new job being the counterpart of the agreement. Many employees simply sign the document, forget about it, and keep going relentlessly. But if an employee has signed such an agreement and violates its terms – and the previous employer discovers this – a claim for non-compete violation is often made.

Question: What does the FTC Act say about non-compete obligations? The most common challenges to non-compete obligations challenge the appropriateness of their scope, which may include duration, geographic boundaries or material scope. Minnesota courts tend to weigh these dimensions against each other. For example, the longer the duration of the non-compete obligation, the less restrictive the geographical or material scope must be. Almost all non-compete obligations are decided in the context of an application for an injunction (TRO) or an injunction. Courts decide whether the employee should be prevented from engaging in competitive activities and may award damages, including legal fees in some cases. When an employer sues an employee to enforce the non-compete obligation, it can be costly to go as far as a lawsuit, but most lawsuits are settled and a negotiated settlement is reached between the parties. Answer: Yes, the FTC will likely propose new rules or regulations that will interpret existing federal laws with respect to the issue of non-competition law. The Agency`s decision-making takes time, usually at least a year, and is very often the subject of legal challenges. Agencies cannot make laws, they can only make rules and regulations to fill in the details of existing laws.

We should expect litigation on this issue for several years. With the advent of the Internet, advances in computer technology, improved telecommunications, and easily accessible air travel, Minnesota courts appear to be relaxing the requirement for adequate geographic flexibility for non-compete obligations. In today`s economy, employees can do a lot of competitive damage thousands of miles away with a single phone and computer. To schedule a consultation to discuss your rights and options under a non-compete agreement, please contact us at 612-455-0500 or email at [email protected] Since the validity of these restrictive agreements in Minnesota is determined on a case-by-case basis, it is often a good idea for an employment lawyer to review your documents before signing. Schwartz Law Firm has experience in representing employers and professionals such as doctors, nurses and commercial agents with respect to the applicability of competitive and unconsolidated agreements. Minnesota courts are more likely to uphold non-isolation agreements than non-compete clauses, but they are also under more scrutiny than restrictive agreements. Unlike non-compete obligations, for example, non-packaged agreements generally do not require geographical restrictions. however, they must have reasonable time limits. In addition, Minnesota courts generally uphold non-solicitation agreements that have been made as the employee progresses within the company and assumes more responsibility. Question: Will the FTC issue new rules on non-compete obligations? In certain very narrow circumstances, Minnesota courts will find that a „mid-term“ non-compete obligation is taken into account, which will otherwise not be taken into account if the employee subsequently received compensation or benefits that would not have been granted to the employee without the non-compete obligation. If, for example, the employer detained the employee for many years or decades after the non-compete agreement was entered into, or promoted the employee to a senior position based on the employee`s non-compete obligation, the courts may find appropriate consideration.

In general, however, courts require the employer to prove that the employee received significant consideration at the time of entering into the contract (and not just retrospectively). While there is no law in Minnesota that dictates how many years are considered appropriate for a non-compete obligation, Minnesota courts almost always hold that a one (1) year non-compete obligation is appropriate. Non-compete obligations of two (2) years of age are sometimes considered appropriate; although some Minnesota courts have waived such agreements. Three (3) years of non-compete obligations are generally considered inappropriate by Minnesota courts. These are general guidelines and should not be used to guide your particular situation. Ultimately, the court must decide what is reasonable and has the power to shorten or „blue pencil“ the agreement as described below. A person limited by a non-compete obligation may also challenge the validity of the commercial interest allegedly protected by the non-compete obligation. In the absence of a genuine interest in protection, the non-compete obligation cannot stand up to the court`s scrutiny. Minnesota courts generally recognize two legitimate business interests that may justify a non-compete obligation: confidential information or trade secrets, and goodwill of the customer. Often, a legal dispute over the „blue pencil doctrine“ is at the heart of a lawsuit that interprets a non-compete obligation under Minnesota law. Even if the agreement is supported by reasonable consideration and is intended to protect a legitimate interest of the employer, the court can still remove parts of the non-compete obligation that are considered inappropriate under Minnesota law.

.