For example, in Florida, the law supports competition bans so that the facts of your situation and the state in which you live determine where the agreement is enforced against you. While the Illinois courts indicate the above rule, the analytical steps should logically be done in reverse order – because insufficient consideration of the claim is fatal. This is done under McInnis v. OAG Motorcycle Ventures, Inc. three conditions for a restrictive employment agreement, which can enforce a former worker`s right to work for a competitor, in accordance with Illinois law: (1) It must be subject to a valid contract; 2. it must be supported by an appropriate counterpart; and (3) it must be reasonable, considering: (a) it is not greater than is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer, (b) not to impose unreasonable harshness on the worker and (c) not to harm the public. The McInnis decision interpreted the Fifield decision as requiring two years of employment for consideration to be appropriate.  See General, z.B. Coady v. Harpo, Inc., 719 N.E.2d 244, 250 (Fig.
App. Ct. 1999); Norman D. Bishara et al., An Empiracle Analysis of Noncompetition Clauses and Other Restrictive Postemployement Covenants, 68 Vand. L.J. 1, 28-35 (2015) (deals with the adequacy of the restrictive application of agreements). Nothing motivates an employer more than a call from a long-time customer that describes in detail the customer`s conversation with you, the employer`s former high-end salesperson. In fact, in my experience, it`s a surefire way to provoke your ex-employer, to do something – something actually – to stop you. While the agreement you signed may not even be worth the paper it`s printed on, your former employer doesn`t care if that call is received. Of course, this isn`t necessarily a reason to change jobs or make sales in your old area. But you and your new employer need to get solid legal advice on what to do (or not do) so you don`t make things worse until your first day on work in your new job.  The 1998 decision in Application Group, Inc.
vs. Hunter Group, Inc. vs. Hunter Group, Inc. In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to agree to a one-year non-compete clause. The treaty states that it is governed by Maryland law and must be interpreted under it. A Maryland employee then went to see a competitor in California. When the new California employer filed a lawsuit in California state court to invalidate the requirement not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its companies so that they can hire the personnel of their choice.
California law therefore applies to non-California workers seeking employment in California. [Citation required] For example, the Supreme Court of Ohio, Ohio, ruled that, in the case of a licensed employee, the continued employment was sufficient to make the agreement enforceable. . . .