Noncompete Agreement Arizona

It is interesting to note that most of the non-competition agreements I have reviewed are outdated and unenforceable due to poor wording. Non-competition conditions are a common problem for workers and employers in the current workplace. Many employers require all or certain key employees to sign agreements prohibiting employees from working for a competitor for a period of time after the employee`s departure. People often wonder if such agreements are applicable, especially because Arizona is a “right to work.” Arizona is a state of law, but it does not affect non-competition rules. On the contrary, the Arizona Courts have developed a standard to determine whether a non-compete clause is applicable. This article examines some of the reasons why an employer may require a non-compete agreement and the applicability of such agreements. The Arizona courts will apply a non-compete agreement though: the first factor taken into account is whether there is a good business reason to ask an employee to sign the agreement. Some common reasons for requiring an employee to sign a non-compete clause are the protection of trade secrets, the protection of customer information or prices, or the possibility of having sufficient time to train new employees. As the term “public order” says, a non-compete clause that somehow harmed the Arizona public will not be legally applicable. While this article provides an overview of non-competition obligations, there are other factors to consider and you should not rely exclusively on this information to evaluate a non-compete agreement. If you are dealing with a non-competition agreement, it is best to consult a lawyer who is involved in this area of the law. To be applicable, a non-compete clause requires four things: while non-compete bans are an effective way to protect your company`s business secrets, Arizona courts are carefully considering whether the non-compete agreement should be enforced, since non-compete will have on staff. To be enforceable, the Court will consider the following factors: 1) there is a legitimate commercial purpose for non-competition prohibitions; 2) the worker received a benefit for the agreement; 3) the agreement is temporary and sustainable; and 4), the agreement is contrary to public policy.

The last factor the Arizona Courts is waiting for is whether the non-compete clause is opposed to public policy. For example, a court is unlikely to enter into a non-competition agreement if it completely excludes a person`s ability to work in his or her chosen profession or imposes unjustified financial bias on the person. Courts are also more likely to impose non-competition bans on certain professions, such as physicians or other health care providers, because public policies allow people to choose their own doctors.

Posted in Uncategorized
Back to top