Arguments In The Airco Case

Non-compete covenants are clauses contained in contracts that employers have their employees sign. The purpose is to help protect a company’s trade secrets. These contracts are controversial since they do restrict individuals from gaining employment with another company should they decide to leave their present employer. The enforceability of non-compete covenants vary in different states. In the Airco case, which took place in Charlotte, North Carolina, non-compete covenants “are enforceable but not favored, and when challenged in court, they are viewed with scrutiny”(Mann-Stadt,Wells, 2014). In theory, it seems reasonable that a company would like to have a way to keep their trade information a secret. However, the current employees should be adequately compensated for choosing to sign such a document since they are restrictive in regard to greatly limiting an employee’s future career endeavors. Also, it may be in the employee’s best
According to Justia, on the subject of the consideration for the agreement in question, “the contract actually does not bind the employer to any promise” and “no new promise has been made that Milner, the employer in this case was required to keep in return for the promise not to compete”. With that being said, since the employer has not offered reasonable consideration in return, then the non-compete covenant should prove to be unenforceable. It does not seem fair for former employees to have their job prospects drastically reduced by a past employer’s contract with a company the individual no longer works for; especially if the agreement is essentially one-sided. In this particular case document, it was mentioned the clause has given a two year time frame. The time period in the contract may have been more reasonable if it were made for six months or even a year