The sector or nature of the job application is linked to this, which specifically excludes the non-compete clause for the worker. An appropriate non-competition clause may prohibit a former worker from working in a particular subgroup of an industry, but a non-compete clause prohibiting a former worker from working for a competitor in any capacity, even in a position that has nothing to do with the worker`s previous work, would be inappropriate. This section deals with the fact that Michigan courts are still somewhat supportive of non-competition prohibitions. The Court of Appeal accepted the court`s decision. The Court recognized that, although the Michigan courts upheld language similar to the reasonable prohibition on working with another company offering the same product or services as a former employer, the present case was different in that the post-employment restriction was indeed broader than the non-compete agreements previously imposed. For companies, trying to force all employees to agree on a cookie-cutter contest is a problem. Instead, employers should discuss with a company and labour firm the development of non-compete agreements and other employment contracts dealing with specific issues that are relevant to the circumstances of each worker. By ensuring that employment contracts are enforceable, companies can be sure that they have done everything in their power to avoid costly future disputes. If you live in Michigan, there is no clear answer.
Some agreements are applicable, others are not, and others should be limited in their application. To be applicable, an agreement must be appropriate in time and space and be limited to the protection of the legitimate interests of the employer. Agreements that are temporary or unlimited are often limited by court review. However, if the non-compete clause attempts to stifle legitimate competition, it may violate laws relating to unfair business practices and may be totally unenforceable. The new bill would require employers who are not in competition: for example, the court chose Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc. (2007). In this case, the non-competition agreement was applied. However, the court distinguished Coates because the non-competition restriction prohibiting a former worker from working for „any business in competition with the company,“ which means a company that, as a company as a whole, competes with the former employer. A non-compete agreement is a contract that is either in your general employment contract or as a separate document and generally states that you do not operate the same type of business as your employer when you leave your current job. Specifically, it is intended to protect the employer from your knowledge or the use of „trade secrets“ obtained during your employment to compete with the employer of another company that operates a similar type of business. The former employer objected to this decision, but the Court of Appeal approved the court`s decision.
The Court recognized that the Michigan courts had upheld a similar language as a reasonable prohibition on the care of a similar/competing business; Nevertheless, it made this case different because the non-competitive language was too broad. In violation of the first criterion, it prohibited the former worker from working in any capacity for a competitor, even in a position that had nothing to do with the worker`s previous activity. The Court also found that these particular competition rules were contrary to the fourth test above, as the employer did not make reasonable arguments in favour of protecting its competitive business interests.