IN NOMBREUX PAYS, THE JUSTICE COURT IS AUTORISED to deal with a non-competition agreement, which it deems too broad, on a reasonable scope. These blue pencils are almost always in the company`s interest. Most jurisdictions that stated that employment was sufficiently taken into account, most of them said that the agreement was enforceable only if the employment took longer. However, Maryland and New Jersey impose a non-compete clause, even if it is not a condition for future employment. Courts in Connecticut, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia argue that continued employment alone is not enough and impose non-competition bans related to wage increases, promotions or other quid pro quo. During the duration of his employment at the company to devote his time, services, attention and effort in its entirety to the accomplishment of his tasks and the promotion of the company and the interests of the company. Under Virginia law, a non-compete agreement is rigorously interpreted against employers and deemed applicable if the agreement as a whole proves appropriate. The courts require that competition contracts be as narrow as possible in order to protect the vital interests of the employer while leaving a former worker with the opportunity to pursue a career. A non-competition agreement is applied where (1) the federal state is narrowly adapted to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer, (2) the federal state does not impose undue burdens on the worker`s ability to earn a living, and (3) the federal state is reasonable from a public policy perspective. The employer bears the burden of proof of these factors. To determine whether an employer has fulfilled its burden of proving these factors, the court examines the function of the restriction, the geographic scope of the restriction and the duration of the restriction. The Tribunal analyzes these aspects in common and not as separate investigations. Although non-competition prohibitions apply in Virginia, they are considered unfavourable trade restrictions.
That is why the employer bears the burden of proof of any ambiguity in the agreement. In addition, the courts will interpret all the ambiguities of the agreement in favour of the worker. If a provision of a competition incapacity agreement is capable of a more than reasonable interpretation, a court will find it ambiguous. If a provision is clear, it is read according to its clear meaning.