Non compete legal issues advice please.

[brainhurts]

Hey all,
I have a friend who flies for a company that has a non compete clause. He is a helicopter pilot who was not a pay for training type, and was a fully qualified pilot. Another similar operator has given him an interview, and when he reexaimined his contract, it bars him from flying helicopters FOR ANYONE for a year after he leaves his current employer. Is that legal? Will it be pursued? I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this issue? Any good lawyers out there who specalize in this field? Any help would be appreciated.

 

[outtahere]

What kind of screwed up contract language is that? First time I've ever heard of anything like that. I have heard of business owners having to sign no compete clauses when they sell out, but not for employees. The department of labor should be consulted because I don't believe it is legal to bar a private individual from working for someone else. He may not be able to start his own business, but just leaving for another job should be ok in my opinion.

 

[Andy Neill]

Are the elements of an enforceable contract there?
Meeting of the minds:
Did the employer understand he was offering employment and the employee believe he was accepting employment? I think so
Offer and Acceptance:
The same as in the first point. Check.
Mutual Consideration:
Each got something of consideration from this contract. The employee got employment and the employer received the services of the pilot.
Performance or Delivery:
This was not a contract for future employment but has been ongoing - right?
Good Faith:
Neither party was trying to decieve the other - right?
No Violation of Public Policy:
A contract to sell meth to school kids is unenforceable. I see nothing in this agreement that violates public policy.

Looks like all the elements of an enforceable contract are there. Is there a penalty provision for someone who does compete within a year of leaving? Like does the contract say the former employee will pay the previous employer an amount equal to the compensation of the competing employment received within a year of leaving? If not, it may not have any teeth in the enforcement.

I'm sure your friend read the contract before signing and agreed to the provisions - right?

 

[brainhurts]

Are the elements of an enforceable contract there?
Meeting of the minds:
Did the employer understand he was offering employment and the employee believe he was accepting employment? I think so
Offer and Acceptance:
The same as in the first point. Check.
Mutual Consideration:
Each got something of consideration from this contract. The employee got employment and the employer received the services of the pilot.
Performance or Delivery:
This was not a contract for future employment but has been ongoing - right?
Good Faith:
Neither party was trying to decieve the other - right?
No Violation of Public Policy:
A contract to sell meth to school kids is unenforceable. I see nothing in this agreement that violates public policy.

Looks like all the elements of an enforceable contract are there. Is there a penalty provision for someone who does compete within a year of leaving? Like does the contract say the former employee will pay the previous employer an amount equal to the compensation of the competing employment received within a year of leaving? If not, it may not have any teeth in the enforcement.

I'm sure your friend read the contract before signing and agreed to the provisions - right?

Hey Andy,
I do not have the document, but it is pretty vauge and does not talk about compensation for violating the non compete clause. My buddy was aware of the clause but thought the clause pertained to flying for advertisement vs. all flying.

 

[radarlove]

Sounds too strict to hold up in court. Non-competes have to be very specific, such as "Can't fly for a competitor that has the same equipment within 60 miles", not "Can't fly at all unless you fly here".

One has to be able to make a living, which has been the standard to date.

The bigger question isn't what's enforceable, it's whether or not the company will file suit. He does NOT want to have to pony up lawyer fees and the related hassles while a bigger company spends without blinking.

In the end, he would very likely prevail, but he'd spend money to get there.

On the other hand, if there is even one example of someone leaving for a competitor with no lawsuit, he's probably just fine, the employment contract is like a health club making you sign away all your legal rights to sue for negligence. They can make you sign it, but it's still meaningless.

 

[Andy Neill]

I think the critical emelent is whether or not a penalty is specified. If not, the judge will look to the damage incurred to the employer by the pilot flying a helicopter elsewhere. The employer would be hard pressed to show real damage.

 

[brainhurts]

Thanks Guys,
I will pass that on. Is there a law firm that comes to mind that you can recommend that may be familiar with this aspect of contracts? Does it need to be an aviation or labor firm?

 

[Jmoney]

I think the critical emelent is whether or not a penalty is specified. If not, the judge will look to the damage incurred to the employer by the pilot flying a helicopter elsewhere. The employer would be hard pressed to show real damage.

Maybe there is no monetary penalty, maybe they would just refuse to give you a good reference-of even advise future employers that you violated this agreement. That sort of stuff can be far more damaging long-term. Would you hire anyone who signed such an agreement and violated it? Probably not.

Personally, I don't sign anything I don't agree with and understand.

 

[brainhurts]

Maybe there is no monetary penalty, maybe they would just refuse to give you a good reference-of even advise future employers that you violated this agreement. That sort of stuff can be far more damaging long-term. Would you hire anyone who signed such an agreement and violated it? Probably not.

Personally, I don't sign anything I don't agree with and understand.

True.

 

[CitationUltra]

Are the elements of an enforceable contract there?
Meeting of the minds:
Did the employer understand he was offering employment and the employee believe he was accepting employment? I think so
Offer and Acceptance:
The same as in the first point. Check.
Mutual Consideration:
Each got something of consideration from this contract. The employee got employment and the employer received the services of the pilot.
Performance or Delivery:
This was not a contract for future employment but has been ongoing - right?
Good Faith:
Neither party was trying to decieve the other - right?
No Violation of Public Policy:
A contract to sell meth to school kids is unenforceable. I see nothing in this agreement that violates public policy.

Looks like all the elements of an enforceable contract are there. Is there a penalty provision for someone who does compete within a year of leaving? Like does the contract say the former employee will pay the previous employer an amount equal to the compensation of the competing employment received within a year of leaving? If not, it may not have any teeth in the enforcement.

I'm sure your friend read the contract before signing and agreed to the provisions - right?

Very well put. Rare to see a cogent analysis here that doesn't sound something like "...contracts [I don't like] are unenforceable" or "...'they' don't bother to pursue them..."