![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Or, States That Don't Suck For Employees Part VIII
Living in Florida, one of the worst states in America for employees on noncompete agreements, I'm used to having to deal with a statute that says the courts cannot consider any economic hardship on the employee when enforcing noncompete agreements. Imagine my surprise when researching New York law to find that other states aren't so heartless.
If you live in Alabama, Arizona, DC, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, then your state courts will balance the hardship imposed on you when considering enforcing whether to enforce the noncompete. Alaska has a similar defense, which is whether the employee's sole means of support is barred. Of course, if you're lucky enough to live in California, noncompete agreements are rarely enforced there. In a country where sandwich makers can be forced to sign noncompetes, it's time that the states that don't consider economic hardship on the employee wake up and protect their citizens.
See more employment law posts on Donna Ballman's blog, Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, please connect with us through our corporate site.