Widget not in any sidebars

In early December last year, the Indiana Supreme Court again dealt a blow to a company in the hope of enforcing a non-compete clause signed by a former employee. In particular, the State Supreme Court ruled that the agreement was not applicable. On the one hand, it prohibited the employee from interviewing any employee who provides any type of work at all levels of the first company. They are probably office cleaners, truck drivers, etc. According to the Tribunal, its scope is too broad. All the company could do now was write better competition bans in the future. First, should the agreement protect the legitimate interests of the company? For example, the company could prevent an employee from transferring the company`s client lists or methods and formulas to the new employer. But simply preventing other companies in their sector from hiring may not be a reasonable business interest. The second step in determining the applicability of a non-competition agreement is the scope of the agreement and the restrictions imposed on an individual. A non-compete agreement cannot seriously prevent a worker from working elsewhere, nor should the agreement be broad enough that restrictions on the former worker`s interests are not protected either.

Restrictions on the type of employment are generally limited to the amount of work provided by the former employee to the company and must be of an appropriate duration. In the event that a non-competition obligation contains the necessary provisions, but the employer does not comply with them, it is obvious that a physician may invoke a violation of contractual rights and/or be asked, in terms of company protection, to instruct the employer to take the measures required by the new law, such as the obligation to dismiss or access medical records. However, it does not appear that employers will be subject to legal damages or legal fees in connection with such a lawsuit. The “restricted area” for non-compete and non-customer request clauses has been defined as: “Confidential information or trade secrets: confidential information or business secrets of a company may be protected by a non-compete agreement. This type of information may include financial information, marketing strategies, customer information or other unique approaches used by a company in the conduct of its business. Smack dab in the midst of a long “ACT amending the Indiana Health Code” (HB 1004, or “Law,” Governor Eric Holcomb recently signed, the relevant provisions provide that as of July 1, 2020, unworkable agreements will not be enforceable unless they contain all the following: one of the related questions is how the value of the buy-back option affects the employer`s ability to impose the restriction, which implies that the employer is not required to prove that the employer does not have an appropriate right of money. The law here provides an answer which states that if the physician refuses to exercise it, the buy-back option cannot be used in a way that limits the employer`s application of appropriate remedies, such as the application of the non-competition clause. To the extent that the COVID-19 pandemic persists in Indiana beyond the law`s entry into force, this could have an impact on the calculation of a reasonable price for a physician in order to obtain authorization. In other words, if the demand for health professionals continues to increase to cope with the pandemic, the availability and mobility of physicians would become increasingly important.

In this scenario, the purchase price considered reasonable may be lower than that of non-pandemic circumstances, as there is an urgent need for sufficient physicians to treat patients.