The extent of geographic area and economic activity depends on the nature and size of the business and its limited position. A company with a single site in Fort Myers would probably not be able to justify a state-wide non-competition clause, whereas a large company might be able to demonstrate a national restriction that is justified. The length of time it lasts to implement a non-competitive or restrictive confederation is also an issue that is often raised. Florida legislation has tried to address this problem by placing parameters in the statute. For example, any deduction of six months or less is considered appropriate and any deduction of more than two years is considered inappropriate. Courts have generally imposed restrictions of up to 2 years without any exceptional factors. 23 Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (2008) (The California Supreme Court upheld its long-standing public policies that non-compete workers are not applicable). Keep in mind that if there is a non-competition agreement and an infringement occurs, regardless of the circumstances in which the employee left your business, a failure to take action may reveal future attempts to retaliate or discriminate.
As a result, the Brown-Brown court found that the status of Florida`s non-compete clause had an “almost exclusive focus on the employer`s interests” in its prohibition of strict contractual conditions and its refusal to consider the injury suffered by the worker.36 As such, the New York Court of Appeals held that the application of the Florida law was a fundamental public order in New York and 37 – Two critical points major – the general provisions discussed above that have generally not been criticized and applied by other courts, some of the detailed provisions of the Florida non-compete clause, which follow these standard provisions, have been found to be unbalanced and overly favourable to employers. Perhaps the most criticized is the provision that prevents the worker from taking prejudice into account: “When a court determines the enforceability of a restrictive pact, it does not take into account the individualized economic or economic difficulties that could be inflicted on the person against whom the execution is sought.” 20 A second provision, often criticized, is the prohibition of statutes against any rule of contractual construction which “obliges the court to interpret a restrictive confederation closely, against the deference or the author of the contract”. 21 Employers generally seeking to enforce competition agreements, both of these provisions favour the employer. What kind of remedy is there in the event of a violation of a non-competitive or restrictive federal state? As a general rule, the termination action is the preferred remedy sought by a former employer. The employer wants to put an end to the offences and damage to money is not always easy to collect or prove. In addition, the law allows the party in power to collect reasonable legal fees from the non-dominant party. This means that the former employee`s exposure corresponds not only to an injunction, but also to the legal costs incurred by his former employer when the court rules in favour of the former employer. The rules of contract construction – the white decision made a more direct reference to the provision of the non-competition clause regulation that “a court must not apply a contract construction rule that requires the court to narrowly interpret a restrictive alliance against deference.” It is the same provision that New York and other courts have found so obliquely with respect to the employer and the worker that they are contrary to public policy.