« | »

Are Non-Compete Agreements Enforceable In Arkansas

[13] Also known as the Bund, do not compete, a restrictive agreement or a non-compete clause. See Griffin Toronjo Pivateau, Preserving Human Capital: Using The Noncompete Agreement to Achieve Competitive Advantage, 4 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship – L. 319, 331 (2011) („The non-account agreement is known by other names … these terms are interchangeable. »). With the employer`s fundamental understanding of the huge impact that good employees can have on the end result, „competition for good employees becomes as tough as for good customers.“ [63] This competition for workers, coupled with highly mobile staff, has prompted many employers to demand „unprecedented frequency“ that their new recruitments and existing employees enter into anti-competitive agreements. [64] However, the application of these competition prohibitions by the liberal blue pencil method risks harming the interests of the worker, particularly when the worker is faced with a loss of livelihood. [65] Thus, in Bendinger v. Marshalltown Trowell Co., the Arkansas Supreme Court found that the employer`s failure to include a geographic restriction in its non-competition agreement renders it excessive and unenforceable, regardless of whether the employer was competing across the country. [18] Given that the Arkansas courts consider non-competition agreements on a case-by-case basis, the Bendinger court was not satisfied that the employer was referring to Girard v.

Rebsamen Ins. Co. in which the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld an anti-competition agreement, even though it had no geographical restriction. [19] Since workers do not have the bargaining effect or experience in negotiating competition, the Blaustift doctrine continues to confuse workers with respect to their contractual rights. [129] For example, a worker who wishes to leave his employer to find a better-paying job in the same sector will not know the actual terms of his non-competition agreement. Even if the agreement seems unreasonable and unenforceable, the employee may remain in his position for fear that the blue pencil will not help his case. [130] This uncertainty about the application of blue pencils creates undue hardship for the worker if he inadvertently restricts mobility and the right to earn a better life to support himself and their families. [131] There is no doubt that the effects of the application of blue pencils are contrary to Arkansas public policy, particularly when employers are allowed to exercise their unequal bargaining power, while relying on the use of the court-imposed blue pencil tool. [132] To predict the impact of competition imposition on small businesses in Arkansas, you should consider how small businesses employ more than 477,046 Arkansas employees, or 96.6% of all employers in the state. [109] If a non-competition clause is developed without geographic restriction and a court has to change the restriction, what would a reasonable restriction look like for a rural state like Arkansas? Will an Arkansas court be able to create an appropriate geographic restriction to protect an employer`s legitimate business interest, while preventing that disabled worker from leaving the state because of undue difficulties in earning a living and mobility? The Arkansas courts did not answer these questions.

This entry was posted on Donnerstag, Dezember 3rd, 2020 at 06:30 and is filed under Allgemein. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.