•••quote:•••Originally posted by mpp:
•Non-compete clauses are very common in all sorts of employment/training opportunities. Although they can be challenged, it is often difficult and expensive. Things to look at to see if a non-compete clause is enforceable include (pulled from some other web-site):
The restrictions are no greater than necessary for the protection of the employer's legitimate business interest;
The restrictions do not impose undue hardship on the employee; and
The restrictions are not injurious to the public.
Does the clause have geographic or time limits?
Is the employee the sole customer contact?
Does the employee possess confidential information or trade secrets?
Does the non-compete clause seek to restrain ordinary rather than unfair competition?
Does the clause stifle pre-existing skills of the employee, or those skills which were developed while the individual was working for that specific employer?
How does the non-compete clause work to the detriment of the employer and the employee?
Does the clause restrict the employee's sole means of support?
Is the restricted employment merely incidental to the main employment?•••••Excellent information. These clauses, so I have heard are usually unenforceable, and sometimes downright illegal.
The only problem I forsee, is the oddball group that does decide to sue. While you may ultimately prevail, getting wrapped up in an interminable and costly lawsuit cheapens the victory immensely. Unfortunately, there is a rather disturbing segment of the physician public that enjoys litigation.