Despite a booming economy and a tight labour market, too many American workers are stuck in jobs they don`t want, with wages too low. A growing number of studies show that competition bans and non-Polish agreements contribute to these negative trends in the U.S. economy by reducing workers` wages; Limiting occupational mobility and limit the economic growth of businesses and regions. By taking legislative action to protect workers from abusive competition and non-poaching agreements, state policy makers can help restore workers` labour market power and freedom in the economy. In addition, Colorado and Oregon laws attempt to limit the proportion of workers a company can require to sign a non-compete clause. Under Oregon law, a non-compete agreement can only be applied if employees work in administration, management or profession.80 And Colorado limits the ability of employers to enforce these agreements to “executives and executives, as well as employees who constitute professional staff for executives and executives.”80 And Colorado limits the ability of employers to apply these agreements to “executives and executives as well as employees.” who represent professional staff for executives and executives.” 81 These executives are more likely to negotiate such agreements before entering into the contract and leaving the company. While state legislators debate and pass laws limiting the application of non-competition bans, no state has yet passed laws preventing franchisors from requiring non-poaching agreements. This is despite the fact that many labour lawyers and government authorities claim that corporate franchisors violate government and local laws regarding cartels and abuse of dominance when they enter into these agreements. Under Texas law, “a non-compete agreement is applicable if it is, as of the date of the agreement, a side effect of another applicable agreement, to the extent that it contains temporal and geographic areas and the extent of the activity to be limited, which are appropriate and do not show greater deference than is necessary to protect the commercial interest of the promised.”  Physicians are subject to special rules, including the fact that a physician cannot be prohibited from “continuing to care for and treat a patient during an acute illness, even after the termination of the contract or employment.”  If you are considering challenging a non-competing agreement that you have already signed, you will first receive an opinion from an experienced lawyer. The Medix court is not alone, as other courts have also rejected non-competition prohibitions that were too broad.
See z.B. Medispec, LTD v. Chouinard, 133 F. Supp.3d 771 (D. Md. 2015) (an agreement not to compete too much in trying to prevent former employees from obtaining employment in any capacity (including jobs that have nothing to do with sales) for another medical technology company, when he sold only one type of device for his former employer). Similarly, in the JAK Productions case, Inc. Bayer, 94 F. Supp.3d 777 (S.D. W. Va.
2015), the Tribunal concluded that there was no agreement not to compete unreasonably on its face because the 30-mile geographic restriction was not related to a commercial purpose in its call centre store, because calls could be made from anywhere.