Non Compete Agreement In Missouri
However, the right of workers to work freely is used for such protection where they choose. Non-compete agreements in Missouri can generally limit workers in three ways. First, workers may be denied the right to work for competitors in a given geographic area. Second, workers may be denied the right to recruit the employer`s clients. Third, workers may be denied the right to recruit workers from the employer. As a general rule, non-compete agreements in Missouri may prevent an employee from asking the former employee`s clients. However, such restrictions must be proportionate. As a general rule, Missouri courts will not apply a clause that does not have a geographical restriction. However, Missouri`s non-compete agreements do not always have to have a geographic restriction. The need for such a restriction depends on the geographic area in which the worker worked and the extent of the contact the worker has had with the employer`s clients.
Finally, non-compete agreements in Missouri may prevent a worker from working for a competitor or competing with the employer for a reasonable amount of time. The geographical restriction associated with such a restriction should not, in general, be greater than the employer`s commercial area. Missouri courts have upred a three-year ban for a chief operating officer to work for a competitor in the state of Missouri, a two-year ban for a chief operating officer within 50 miles of which the manager provided services to the employer, a two-year ban for a customer service employee limited to a 100-mile radius. , a two-year ban for a seller limited to a 125-mile radius. and a three-year ban for a company president limited to a 125-mile radius. The Missouri courts have given further guidance since La Copeland`s decision. The opinion of Healthcare Svcs. Of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo.
bench 2006) has proven to be one of those pioneering non-competition legal cases (“NCA”) in Missouri. It has often been cited to determine ways to balance the rights and needs of employers and workers and noted that NCAs must be adequate because they are no more restrictive than necessary, are geographically and time-appropriate, not only protect the employer from competition, and protect trade secrets or customer contact. Id. Oklahoma Gesetz (Title 15 O.S. Abschnitt 219.A) severely limits non-compete agreements. Such agreements do not agree when they go beyond the restriction imposed on the former employee to request “the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services to the former employer`s historical clients.” The restrictions at issue exceeded these limits. It was also unclear whether, under Oklahoma law, transfer sources would be treated as “historical clients of the former employer” if they regularly passed on transactions but did not make direct transactions. The law on competition prohibitions is constantly evolving, more in some states than in others. A new status or central decision of the State Court can have a huge impact on existing non-competition agreements.