1. How does the court analyze the reasonableness of this noncompetition agreement? The court takes a number of things under consideration such as her age, and how much money she makes along with a no compete clause. All of this helps to determine her ability to make a living at that wage, as well as her work experience and job prospects. 2. Why does it rule that the noncompetition is invalid? Kings work experience is restricted to this particular field of work therefore enforcing a no complete cause a detriment to her ability to find a job. 3. Since it ruled the clause to be invalid, is King free to take a job anywhere? No, the court determined that she will be limited from working with in a two-mile radius of the Head Start business at which …show more content…
Courts tend to be antagonistic to noncompetition agreements. Why is that? They are trying to protect the public; the public is free to choose who they seek services from regardless of a no compete agreement. Secondly, they want to protect workers’ livelihood and rights. 6. Suppose an employer could request any restrictions it wanted on future employment. What problems could that create? The employees that had the most experience would feel they couldn’t leave the job as easily since they would no longer be able to use their skills or the ability to earn a similar wage. Employers could institute unfair work conditions because they know employees could or would not leave. 7. But if an employee agrees to certain conditions, why shouldn’t they be enforced? If a worker knowingly agrees he will never work for another employer, anywhere, in the same field, why not require him to live up to his word? Once again, the courts always rule in the favor of what’s best for the general public. If the employer had the power to control its employees in this way it would lead to a reduction in competition, and ultimately the economy. 8. If a court is free to ignore a contract provision, such as a noncompete agreement, doesn’t that render the contract
Non-compete agreements are usually found in employments contracts in where a company wants to prevent their employees from working for a competing company. The focus of the non-compete agreement is to protect a company’s business interest and trade secrets but, a non-compete covenant must be laboriously drafted to follow the state’s regulation in order to be enforced in court. There is an enormous discrepancy when it comes to cases that deal with non-compete agreements since it deals with revising if the non-compete agreement was lawful to begin with; courts do not have a consistent approach to this. A lot of companies request the courts to enforce the covenant but, in most cases, the agreement is unenforceable due to the unethical and unlawful
In this essay I will look at how this concept can benefit an employer, but also what rights the employee has when it comes to the latter.
much and refuse to let him come back. The employer would be in violation of the
Providing employees the right to select a union to act as their collective bargaining agent.
understandable for employers to not want to be exposed to a risk but this does not help
...loyer gives a promise of privacy and that should be respected, if on the other hand, the employer reserves the right to read email or monitor web browsing the worker can be the except those terms or look elsewhere for employment.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
This disagreement has many valid points on both sides of the argument. On the argument side, one of the premises states that “All employees should be held accountable for their actions.” I believe most people and employers believe in this premise. On the other hand you have the counterargument premise that states “Employers should not be stringent on employees when they are off duty.” Which I also believe that most employees believe in, and also most people believe too. I think both are very valid points in the
In addition, I think that the companies should respect the time they require each employee to work. Most of the companies set up specific hours required for employees to be on their duties and expect them to dedicate time and effort to the growth of the companies while at work. Hence, asking employees to basically do mor...
Giving employees unlimited time off makes it harder to track, leaving companies in the wind when it comes to laws governing sick and maternity leave.
There is no law in place when it comes to workers privacy rights. According to “Workplace Privacy”, “disputes are resolved using some combination of federal, state and c...
Employer or government delay, lack of information from the employer, difficulty of following instructions, conflict of interest and variation to changes are the major factors responsible for these risks (Nur Alkaf, 2012).
Employment law plays a significant role in ensuring that the rights and interest of both the employees and employer are met successfully (Braithwaite& Drahos, 2000). Compliance to this benefit creates a viable working envoronment not only to the employer versus employee but also to the business society, in general. Significance of employment law include:
1. Employers should provide a flexible working environment for their employees. Certain employees have the right to request flexible working arrangements. Employers can only refuse these requests on reasonable business grounds.A flexible workplace is one where employers and employees work together to decide on working arrangements such as hours of work, work location and the way work is carried out. It means thinking creatively about how working lives can be planned to match individual and business needs.
Because of this, many employees tend to leave when they have found a job with higher pay. This increases the training costs for their employees, as they tend to not stay for too long.