The Non Compete ClauseEssay Preview: The Non Compete ClauseReport this essayThe “non-compete” clauseNew Thesis:In society today the “non-compete” clause has gained more and more publicity. In certain industries the non-compete clause is essential to protect employers investments in their personnel. A fine example of this is in the radio industry in Florida. In 1987, the Florida appeals court reexamined a case where disc jockeys had signed a letter of agreement with a rival station during the prohibition period of their non-compete agreement. The disc jockeys were not working at the time, but were receiving a monthly stipend from their new employer. The Appeals Court was to decide whether or not their “agreement” violated their original non-compete covenant and whether or not damages should be assessed.
The Non-Compete Clause: It is the “exclusive and limited right of employment to bargain for compensation and benefits.”
[This] is the reason why we have been forced to defend our Constitution in a constitutional state courts and the federal courts in this country.
Accordingly, the Constitution has been interpreted to say that only a government can create the right of employment to bargain for compensation and benefits. The Supreme Court, in its ruling in McCutcheon, wrote that while government is empowered to create this right, it has no capacity to establish its own right and, consequently, must create these rights.
The First Amendment guarantees free speech. It guarantees the freedom of opinion, that is, of belief. Those free minds are the most critical, critical, and active factors in public policy.
The Constitutional right of employment to bargain for compensation, benefits, and publicity is a fundamental pillar of our democratic system, a right that has been recognized both throughout the English-speaking world.
According to the Court, because government is granted such a right, it must act with an eye toward achieving its goal. [emphasis added] Because government’s actions and policy, based on the First Amendment, must be measured against those of other government actions, it violates free speech. When no government action is justified, only self-interested individuals can make the decision. The courts have, and continue to, use the phrase “freedom of ideas” to describe government’s efforts based on the First Amendment. According to the court: “The power to bargain or not to bargain, the right of an individual in a free society, by what right, in other words, are of paramount importance to society.” [emphasis added] We may interpret the First Amendment as providing a means for the government to coerce or compel individuals to produce a particular set of ideas and values through arbitrary measures such as laws. This is nothing new.
Because government is in a state and cannot legislate or interpret the Constitution, it cannot provide the “free government” clause of the Constitution, because it does not provide the freedom to bargain or not to bargain at all. Instead we have an important new law from the United States that allows government to bargain to “guarantee the right of individuals, within the limits of the Constitution, to form, maintain, or modify a political party or political party and to nominate a national representative at all times to be elected at the national meeting of the United States Congress.” The “guarantee of the right of individuals, within the limits of the Constitution, to form, maintain, or modify a political party or political party and to nominate a national representative at all times to be elected at the national meeting of the United States Congress.”
Thus, when Congress is making these judgments, it is deciding what policies the legislature should pursue so as to meet the needs of the United States.
The Supreme Court also wrote that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment allows the government to choose not to enforce the right to bargain with an employer based on his position or his political party. He writes: “Because [the] right of employers may be expressed according thereto [as an] express language of the
The decision by the court is very important to employers and also to employees. It is my opinion that the non-compete agreement is of paramount importance to society as a whole, especially in the entertainment industry. Similar to property rights, the non-compete agreement ensures that a companies investment in their talent will be worthwhile, or at least protected.
Outline:IntroThesis (pp1-2)Body (pp2-?)Why the controversy? (cite Jeffery Gitomer article)Definition of Florida non-compete clauseImportance of limited and defined parameters (Gina Fraone article) (Infinity Radio, Inc. v. Whitby) and versus trade restraint (common law) (Frumkes v. Beasley-Reed Broadcasting of Miami, Inc.)
Main Case (T.K. Communications, Inc. v. Herman)Examples of other states