If the court did find that Bodyworks had a legitimate business interest, the next element that must be met is that the non-compete is not oppressive to the employee or the public health. Petrozza, 373 S.E.2d at 453. A non-compete is oppressive to the employee when it violates the time and territory element. Id. Since the time and territory of the non-compete is reasonable in the present case, the court will find that it is not oppressive to the employee. On the other hand, the court will likely find that the non-compete is oppressive to the public health because restricting Ms. Radford will cause a substantial burden on the public seeking her specialized treatment.
If following the restrictions of the non-compete would create a substantial question of harm to the public health, then the publics’ interest outweighs the business interests of the employer, and as a result the court will not uphold the …show more content…
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 584 S.E.2d 328, 335 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). The court’s basis for their conclusion was that losing one of several dentists in an area would only be oppressive to Dr. Carroll because he wouldn’t be able to continue a relationship with his patients. Id. If Dr. Carroll was just one of a few specialists in his field or the non-compete greatly limited patients dental care provider, then the court would have likely found for Dr. Carroll. Id. In Ms. Radford’s case, she can be differentiated from Dr. Carroll because she was the only specialist in the area and by losing her, patients would have been limited in choosing their therapist. Therefore, applying the facts in the present case and the rationale used in both Dickey and Petrozza the court will likely hold that the non-compete is against public
If following the restrictions of the non-compete would create a substantial question of harm to the public health, then the publics’ interest outweighs the business interests of the employer, and as a result the court will not uphold the …show more content…
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 584 S.E.2d 328, 335 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). The court’s basis for their conclusion was that losing one of several dentists in an area would only be oppressive to Dr. Carroll because he wouldn’t be able to continue a relationship with his patients. Id. If Dr. Carroll was just one of a few specialists in his field or the non-compete greatly limited patients dental care provider, then the court would have likely found for Dr. Carroll. Id. In Ms. Radford’s case, she can be differentiated from Dr. Carroll because she was the only specialist in the area and by losing her, patients would have been limited in choosing their therapist. Therefore, applying the facts in the present case and the rationale used in both Dickey and Petrozza the court will likely hold that the non-compete is against public