The strength of a non-competition clause depends in some way on an employer`s ability and willingness to impose it. It takes time and money to impose a culture of competition. In addition, consistency in employer enforcement is essential to ensure that agreements maintain their applicability. History of non-compete clauses in Florida As a general rule, non-compete agreements (also known as restrictive agreements) are contractual agreements in which a worker promises not to compete with his employer`s activities during employment and for some time after termination of employment. Non-compete agreements may include a worker`s agreement not to work for the employer`s competitor or competitors and a worker`s agreement not to recruit the employer`s clients for a certain period of time.11 In addition to the wage/employer context, non-competitive agreements between a buyer and a seller are often used when buying an ongoing business. The buyer will ask the seller for a non-compete agreement so that the seller does not take a competing transaction immediately after the sale of the business or rob the customers of the business that the seller has just sold. In considering the enforceable force, the Tribunal considers that the non-competition agreement is contrary to the circumstances of the company, the current position and the work claimed by the company. Second, if you have identified legitimate business interests, you identify employees who have access to that information in your corporate structure. These key workers, and only these key workers, should be subject to non-competition bans. Although non-competition prohibitions are generally applicable, many employers find themselves in difficult situations when it comes to enforcing a non-compete agreement. Below are some of the most common mistakes made by entrepreneurs and employers in managing competition. In addition, while attempting to harmonize the status of non-compete with respect to protected interests with its earlier analysis of trade restrictions, the Tribunal cited, in a parenthematic language, Capelouto v.
Orkin Extermination Co. von Fla. Inc. , 183 So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1966), which suggests that non-competition prohibitions should be imposed in a manner that “protects the legitimate interests of the employer without harming the public interest and without inflicting an excessively severe or repressive result on the worker.” 59 This consideration of the impact on the worker appears to be contrary to a strict prohibition on the consideration of the worker`s hardness. Is it possible to infer from the white language that the consideration of hardness might be relevant to the employee? Do the Tribunal`s references to the inalienable constitutional right at work, the ability of the courts to amend non-competition agreements that are not reasonably necessary, and the trial of the status of the courts to grant a single, reasonably necessary discharge, support such a conclusion? Could the Florida Supreme Court approve the opinion of the 11th District of Transunion and decide that the prohibition on consideration of worker injury applies only to “enforcement” and not to “repair”? No one knows, since the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on these issues, but it can be assumed, in the white opinion, that the courts have considerable discretion to apply the adequacy standard and that its findings should necessarily be based on context and facts.