Even workers labeled as “independent contractors”—who should have the freedom to work for multiple clients—are often required to sign non-competes that limit where they can work. Employers often present non-competes as a “take it or leave it” contract, forcing workers either to sign or forego employment.
As previously reported (Dentons Alert), the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a regulation earlier this year that effectively bans most non-competes for employees and independent contractors (the “FTC Rule”). The effective date of the FTC Rule is September 4, 2024.
Add information about the parties involved. Describe the terms of the Non-Compete Agreement, such as the length and area of the restriction. If necessary, you can include a non-solicitation clause. Add a confidentiality clause.
Are non-competes legal? A non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it (1) is necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests, (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) does not harm the public, and (4) is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.
Every state has its own law regarding the use of non-competes. For example, in California, they are deemed illegal, except when selling a business or a shareholder's stock or dissolution of a partnership; while in Florida, they are allowed but are subject to strict scrutiny.
Non-compete agreements are a critical tool for protecting business interests in a globalized economy. By understanding the global landscape of non-competes, employers can create agreements that are both enforceable and fair.
If an independent contractor violates a non-compete agreement, the company that issued the non-compete contract may take legal action against them. They can file a lawsuit seeking damages, a court injunction prohibiting the worker from engaging in competitive activities, or both.
Several factors can void or limit the enforceability of a non-compete agreement, including overly broad restrictions, unreasonable time frames or geographical limits, lack of consideration (such as compensation or job opportunities provided in exchange for the agreement), and violation of public policy.