B. Chef Curry’s Covenant Not to Compete Is Likely Unenforceable Because It Does Not Meet All Four Elements of Enforceability.
If chefs are considered professionals, Alabama courts will only enforce a noncompetition agreement when an employer has a protectable interest, the restriction is reasonably related to that interest, the restriction is reasonable in time and place, and the restriction imposes no undue hardship upon the employee. All four of these elements must be found, otherwise the non-compete clause will be held unenforceable.
1. The protectable interest element is likely not satisfied because many potentially protectible interests were formed/learned by Chef Curry prior to her employment with Viola.
Using Alabama case law, courts …show more content…
In Concrete Co. v. Lambert, a non-compete clause for 60 miles from Montgomery, Alabama was, under the circumstances, not unreasonable. 510 F. Supp. 2d 570, 584 (M.D.A.L. 2007). However, the geographical limits are not looked at alone. The circumstances of the case – the nature and character of employment, size and condition of geographical limitation, duration, and what consideration employee had when initially agreeing to the restriction – all tie in to finding a 5-year, 60 mile restriction unreasonable. Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 584. The general rule is that restrictions in time and/or place should be shorter, especially when either time or place is longer. Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 584. Like the former employee in Concrete, Chef Curry is unreasonably restricted in time and place because both a 60-mile and state-wide restriction lasting many years prevents them from working. Unless the time or geographical limit is significantly lowered, as it is an unreasonable restriction to the Chef Curry’s ability to work, the non-compete clause’s 3 years and state-wide restriction will be found …show more content…
Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 585 (following the Alabama Supreme Court case, King v. Head Start Family Hair Salons, Inc., 886 So. 2d 769, 772 (Ala. 2004)). While ensuring those individuals employed within a specific trade are not impoverished, Eastis furthers the discussion, emphasizing a consideration of factors, such as age, physical and emotional limitations, education level, and [other] marketable skills. 65 So. 3d at 447-49. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama held that a 57-year-old customer sales representative that specialized in petroleum-products-distribution was able to work using their other marketable skills/trades because he had only worked in these sales for the past 8 years, working in other occupations for the rest of his 39-year work history. Eastis, 65 So. 3d at
If chefs are considered professionals, Alabama courts will only enforce a noncompetition agreement when an employer has a protectable interest, the restriction is reasonably related to that interest, the restriction is reasonable in time and place, and the restriction imposes no undue hardship upon the employee. All four of these elements must be found, otherwise the non-compete clause will be held unenforceable.
1. The protectable interest element is likely not satisfied because many potentially protectible interests were formed/learned by Chef Curry prior to her employment with Viola.
Using Alabama case law, courts …show more content…
In Concrete Co. v. Lambert, a non-compete clause for 60 miles from Montgomery, Alabama was, under the circumstances, not unreasonable. 510 F. Supp. 2d 570, 584 (M.D.A.L. 2007). However, the geographical limits are not looked at alone. The circumstances of the case – the nature and character of employment, size and condition of geographical limitation, duration, and what consideration employee had when initially agreeing to the restriction – all tie in to finding a 5-year, 60 mile restriction unreasonable. Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 584. The general rule is that restrictions in time and/or place should be shorter, especially when either time or place is longer. Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 584. Like the former employee in Concrete, Chef Curry is unreasonably restricted in time and place because both a 60-mile and state-wide restriction lasting many years prevents them from working. Unless the time or geographical limit is significantly lowered, as it is an unreasonable restriction to the Chef Curry’s ability to work, the non-compete clause’s 3 years and state-wide restriction will be found …show more content…
Concrete, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 585 (following the Alabama Supreme Court case, King v. Head Start Family Hair Salons, Inc., 886 So. 2d 769, 772 (Ala. 2004)). While ensuring those individuals employed within a specific trade are not impoverished, Eastis furthers the discussion, emphasizing a consideration of factors, such as age, physical and emotional limitations, education level, and [other] marketable skills. 65 So. 3d at 447-49. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama held that a 57-year-old customer sales representative that specialized in petroleum-products-distribution was able to work using their other marketable skills/trades because he had only worked in these sales for the past 8 years, working in other occupations for the rest of his 39-year work history. Eastis, 65 So. 3d at