Noncompetes are generally thought of as unique agreements given the varying way states view the restrictive covenants imposed on employees by such agreements. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that that Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., requires arbitration, not litigation, as the proper dispute resolution method for determining enforceability
noncompetes
Ambiguous Noncompetes
By Robert Sullivan on
Posted in Noncompete Agreements
The general rule in Wisconsin is: (a) Courts will literally interpret unambiguous contracts; and (b) extrinsic evidence will be used to interpret ambiguous contracts. A recent appellate court decision applied this general rule with respect to noncompete agreements holding that the trial court’s finding that the noncompete was ambiguous was, without additional findings, not enough to find
…
Noncompetes within Settlement Agreements
By Robert Sullivan on
Posted in Noncompete Agreements
Is an employee who enters into a settlement agreement with an employer entitled to the same protections of statutes that place restrictions on how broad a noncompete can be? A recent Virginia opinion says no. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7181310524699665420&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
The Changing Landscape of Wisconsin Noncompetes
By Robert Sullivan on
Posted in Business Litigation
In Frank D. Gillitzer Electric Co.v. Andersen, a Wisconsin Appellate Court found that a provision in an employment contract that required an employee to repay certain training costs if the employee did not stay with the employer for four years after the training was completed did not violate Wis. Stats. § 103.465. This was …
Further Proof that Noncompete Agreements are Unique
By Robert Sullivan on
Posted in Business Litigation, Noncompete Agreements
The court battle between IBM and Dell over the employment of former IBM M&A chief David Johnson provides even more evidence that Noncompete Agreements are highly unique contracts that often lead to some highly unique arguments in litgation. It appears Mr. Johnson is arguing that because he “intentionally” signed the noncompete on the wrong line…