Non Compete Agreement In Kentucky
In the appeal process, the Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the non-competition agreement and found that Brown, who had been employed two years after the non-competition clause was signed, was supported by an appropriate consideration. In that context, the Court of Appeal merely reaffirmed the long-established rule in Kentucky that continued employment sufficiently takes such an agreement into account. However, in a surprising move, the Kentucky Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal`s decision and found that the agreement was not considered and was therefore unenforceable. The Tribunal rejected the employer`s argument that maintaining employment alone was sufficient consideration to support non-competition. As with any other contract, the validity of a non-competition agreement should be taken into account. If, in Kentucky, the non-compete agreement is entered into at the time of the employee`s termination, the employment itself is recognized as a sufficient consideration for the creation of a binding contract. When a worker is asked to sign a non-compete agreement after employment, this may also apply if the employer proves that he or she has awarded additional consideration to the worker. It is important to note that consideration does not apply only to a monetary value and may include other special benefits or training that the unemployed worker would not have received for the employer. Non-competition prohibitions do not apply in California, where a law prohibits them, except in very limited, rare cases, where, in the absence of judges, they will not argue against former employees. However, California employers can use non-acquisition and confidentiality agreements to protect their trade secrets, customer lists and confidential data from disclosure when employees who access them leave. For assistance in the event of non-competition, labour disputes or labour law, please contact Ziegler and Schneider today at (859) 426-1300.
Our lawyers have played an important role in reviewing Kentucky`s non-competition laws. In the pioneering case of Creech, Inc. v. Brown, lawyers Jon Woodall and Brendan Yates won a Supreme Court victory and changed the way these agreements are applicable. While competition prohibitions protect trade secrets very effectively, the legal system gives a premium to the right of every person to earn a living. This is why a non-competition agreement under judicial review must overcome certain legal obstacles. Kentucky law states that non-compete guarantees are reasonable in scope. The duty of adequacy applies to three aspects of the restriction: if a worker with access to the employer`s business secrets leaves, whether by voluntarily resigning or by resigning involuntarily, this information may accompany the former employee at the expense of the former employer. The former employee can create a competing business or work for a competitor and reveal the secrets of the former employer`s success. A duly crafted agreement under Kentucky non-compete law can prevent this development so unfortunate for the former employer. 3. If the worker is threatened with dismissal because he has not signed the contract; Second, the employer must offer the worker a benefit in exchange for a promise not to compete.