Enforceability Of Non-Solicitation Agreements In New York

On the other hand, a non-call agreement prevents a worker from boarding clients and/or other staff after the termination of employment for a specified period (usually one year). With New York non-solicitation agreements, courts tend to focus on client relationships developed and maintained during employment. DTI submitted that the defendants breached the terms of their competitive obligations by creating employment contracts with LDiscovery and participating in meetings to discuss the strategy as soon as the various defendants were active collaborators at LDiscovery. The Court rejected this argument and stated that “a former worker may prepare to compete for the duration of a non-compete clause… Legitimate preparatory acts include the participation of a subsequent competitor; Building facilities and filing and obtaining trademarks. The Court found that the acts are no longer prepared when they “affect the economic interests of the former employer” for the duration of the non-competition clause, but that the various defendants do not exceed that limit, as their actions were merely prepared. DTI also submitted that the various defendants had violated their non-recruitment clauses by jointly seeking a new job. The Court found that this clause was unenforceable in that it prohibited workers who did not agree to offer a new job from inciting or encouraging their employees to leave their current employer. A non-claim clause of the worker is appropriate and therefore applicable if: (1) it is not greater than what is necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the employer; (2) does not impose unreasonable harshness on the worker; and (3) do not harm the public. DTI submitted that the effect of the clause was to prevent the potential damage to the operation of the business, which would result from the coordinated mass resignation of several employees. The Court found that this was not a legally identifiable interest for the purposes of a restrictive pact. The Court of Justice found that it was free to terminate it, in accordance with fixed-term employment contracts, where DTI intends to prevent workers from coordinating their dismissals. The court considered the clause that imposes inappropriate severity on DTI employees because it prohibits any speech that encourages or “encourages” a worker to terminate his or her employment. The Tribunal found that such a restriction constituted a “contractual gagging rule for workers` complaints.” In addition, the court found that the clause was harmful because it “serves to keep outgoing employees in the dark about employment opportunities beyond DTI.” The Court found that the public interest strongly supported the free flow of information on alternative employment.

Google+

Benjamin Sanchez