In the end, if the employer cannot express (and ultimately prove) a legitimate commercial interest in protection, the likelihood of non-competition is minimal. For the employer too, the lesson is to spend time at the front and work with consultants to create a valid, reasonable and enforceable agreement. If you are a potential competitively conflicted employee or employer who wants to prevent unfair competition and/or protect the confidential information of your competitors, you need a lawyer in the event of economic dispute that Memphis knows and trusts to settle the matter for you. Employers must always protect their business interests, especially in times of pandemic. But doing this now means employers need to choose their battles carefully. The courts will not care what the restrictions state that the worker cannot do if the employer cannot prove a commercial interest worthy of protection justifying the large-scale restrictions. Employers should focus on the protection they really need. If the employer works at the national level, but the worker has only worked in Tennessee, it is probably not time to impose a national non-competition clause. Instead, employers should focus on what they need to protect their trade secrets, customer relationships and specialized training. This is not the time to impose unnecessary restrictions simply because a worker accepted it years ago when he or she needed a job. That is why the court promises to scrutinize the agreements and ensure that they protect a legitimate commercial interest. „The courts will not apply a contract if its sole purpose is to prevent fair competition,“ says Preston-Sharp.C.
Sharp has worked „both sides of the street“ for employers and workers, but his views appear to favour the worker. At a hearing, the court rejected the executives` request for an injunction and ruled that Florida law was applicable as part of their agreements. Following a judicial process, the Tribunal found that the non-competition agreements were valid and applicable and that the duration and geographical constraints of the agreements were negligible, but partly broader. Let`s get back to square one. Officially, in Tennessee, as in most parts of the country, a non-competition agreement is rendered „unfavourable“ by the legal system, which means that the courts enforce the treaties, but reluctantly, because the agreements constitute a „trade restriction“. They infringe an individual`s right to work. Against this almost inalienable right is the need for the company to protect its own existence, to protect itself from implosation when important employees steal intellectual property and buy themselves on a metaphorical street.