Nike Non Compete Agreement

I believe that the complainant has shown a high probability of success on the merits and that balancing the difficulties favours the granting of an injunction for the rest of this case. The applicant has a legitimate interest in enforcing the competition agreement, given the nature of the defendant`s previous duties and its access to confidential, valuable and protected information. Since the defendant`s agreement prohibits only cooperating with a Nike competitor for a period of one year and the defendant is paid in full for one year, the execution does not constitute a significant severity for the defendant. In addition, Reebok has contractually committed to keeping the defendant`s workstation open for one year if Nike succeeds in its efforts to implement the one-year agreement on incapacity to compete. If the accused wishes to work next year, he can do so in any other sector except the sports shoe store, clothing or sports equipment and accessories. Accordingly, the applicant`s application for a referral is granted. The mission received on 26 August 2003 continues until 25 August 2004: for real change, however, the efforts of state legislators must be reflected by their European colleagues, since the European giants – the real leaders of the fashion industry – have so far no real task of reorganising the terms of their agreements typically of an iron non-competition clause. [1] The defendant has not signed a new competition agreement with respect to this promotion; In his own words, his previous competition agreement applied from the date of execution throughout his employment with Nike. (d) McCarthy received and signed the non-compete agreement on March 27, 1997.

The fashion giants “not only stifle competition, entrepreneurship and, ultimately, creativity,” but at the same time make it difficult to move seamlessly from one job to another, due to such broad and restrictive provisions. “Excessive competition bans are detrimental to the entire sector. Talent is wasted. Workers can be locked into stalemate jobs at any level and cannot move forward to improve their skills. Workers with unique skills sitting on the bench are a waste of valuable resources. It was only this month that Massachusetts passed a new law that, when it came into force on October 1, limits the duration of non-competition prohibitions to one year (or less) and prohibits their application for certain workers, including full-time workers eligible for overtime, full-time students, workers aged 18 and under, , and those who are shot for no reason or dismissed. As Betsey Pearce – the behind-the-scenes fashion deal-maker like Nicolas Ghesquiére, Rick Owens and Phoebe Philo – wrote last year, the duration of non-competitions has increased dramatically, from the traditional standard of 6 months between jobs “at 9 or 12 months or more.” In Europe, conditions tend to be even longer: in France, non-competition obligations can legally last up to 24 months.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.