Most companies and their employees believe that these provisions are valid and applicable, but often they are not. The New York courts find the relevance of a non-appeal agreement by analyzing whether or not it serves a legitimate business interest of the employer. For example, the New York courts have ruled that a non-formal notice agreement could prevent a former employee from contacting all of a company`s clients if the employee has not previously served all customers or had no other relationship with all clients. This would be too broad and would not serve a legitimate commercial interest. The Court`s analysis recognized that both competition and non-application would be applicable only to the extent necessary to protect Silipos` “legitimate interests.” Silipos assured that its alliances would be supported by three legitimate interests: the protection of trade secrets, the protection of confidential customer information and the protection of its customer base. Silipos stated that several categories of information that Bickel had access to during his hiring – including marketing sales reports, strategic information and price information – represented both business secrets and confidential customer information. However, the Court challenged and found that none of the business information to which Bickel had access had increased the amount of customer trade secrets or confidential information. While the imposition of a non-application or non-employment regime often focuses on whether the provision protects a legitimate employer interest, the provision must also be reasonable and cannot impose an unreasonable burden on the worker or harm the public. The courts have expressed concerns about the adequacy of a provision and the burden on a worker when a contract prevents the worker from “encouraging” another worker to consider other employment opportunities, particularly when other employment opportunities are not in competitive enterprises, or when the employer attempts to use the non-claim provision to prohibit workers from sharing ordinary complaints about their working conditions. Lazer, 823 N.S.2d to 839; In re Document Techs. Litig, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104811, around `28.
Non-demand disputes almost always arise when an employee goes and tries to woo clients or employees of his or her former employer. One of the defendants was contacted by a staff officer about an employment opportunity at LDiscovery, LLC (LDisovery), a competitor of Epiq`s, and then communicated the possibility to the rest of the defendant. Following negotiations, epiq`s various defendants resigned and entered into employment contracts with LDiscovery, where they would not work for LDiscovery for one year and would receive signature bonuses ranging from $1,200,000 to $1,400,000. LDiscovery also agreed to exempt the various defendants from legal fees and damages related to their passage from Epiq to LDiscovery. Most of New York`s non-invitations contain a clause prohibiting the appeal of staff for a specified period of time. Overall, an employer has a legitimate interest, under New York law, in ” (1) to prevent the notice or disclosure of trade secrets by an employee, (2) to prevent an employee from disclosing confidential information about the employer`s clients, or (3) in cases where the worker`s services are considered to be particularly or unique to the employer.” , including when the employee has developed unique customer relationships at the employer`s expense. Master Card Int`l Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 164 F. Supp.3d 592, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), citing Ticor Title Ins.
Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1999); BDO Seidman, 93 N.Y.2d to 392. The New York courts have obtained non-demand for employees or non-rental provisions preventing competitors from bribing employees with access to confidential information or targeting employees with unique personal relationships with the employer`s clients.