Agreement Too Broad
In reviewing the restrictive pact established in Article 6.1 of Mr. Huartt`s employment contract, the Court clarified that unduly dismissed workers will be excused from complying with restrictive agreements. Some jurisdictions follow the so-called “concierge” rule, which essentially provides that a court does not impose a non-compete agreement if it indiscriminately restricts the scope of a future employment of a future worker, which has nothing to do with the legitimate business interests recognized in that jurisdiction.  In other words, if the non-competition clause is broad enough to literally prevent the former employer from working as a janitor for a competitor, the court would completely ignore the agreement. Under Arizona law, restrictive alliances may apply, but there are pitfalls in trying to go too far to limit employee behavior. In Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruling contained confirmation that employers who do too much may not be able to enforce their agreements. As indicated in the Orca decision, restrictive workers` agreements must be formulated with precision and, if not, could have significant consequences. In other words, a court can still apply the adequacy rule and review a federal, but the costs to the former employer are considerable. Section 9 is intended to motivate employers to deliberately stop making excessive alliances.
In Emerick v. Cardiac Study Center, Inc., P.S.,6, the Tribunal reduced both the geographic scope and duration of a competition contract, while granting legal fees to the former employer. Section 9 (3) is one of the most lawmakers of this participation. When Orca sued Ms. Noder to enforce her agreement with her, she argued that the restrictive agreements in the agreement were excessive. The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed and found that four separate alliances were excessive and unenforceable. While the application of the new legal framework is limited to measures taken after entry into force, the new restrictions on non-competition prohibitions are effective for all agreements that will be challenged in the future, regardless of when such an agreement was concluded. That is why the legislature has declared that it exercises the power of the police. The case concerned the outgoing president of a public relations company, Orca Communications Unlimited. Like many employers, the company had asked its employee, Ms.
Noder, to sign a confidentiality, non-invitation and non-competition agreement. The agreement (a) prohibits Ms. Noder from using confidential orca information or passing it on to third parties; (b) prevented it from providing conflicting services; (c) a ban on asking for orca or potential customers; (d) prevent them from recruiting orca staff. Employers have long been able to deliberately make excessive alliances because they know that the courts would rewrite them as part of the Holding in Wood v. May and then apply them.5 Section 9 is intended to motivate employers to end this practice. Section 9 (3) imposes a legal fine of US$5,000 and requires the former employer to pay the former employee`s legal fees, expenses and expenses if the court or arbitrator “reform, rewrite, amend or only partially enforce a competitive waiver contract.” In addition, the agreement prohibits the employee, customers or potential customers from asking the employer or its related companies to apply for non-application.