If the employer does not actively encourage such verification, the potential worker should inform the employer that he or she wishes the non-compete agreement to be verified by a lawyer. A potential employer who opposes such a request is unlikely to prove to be a good employer in the long run. The employee`s lawyer will make the employee understand how the employee`s compensation potential will be limited at the end of the employment relationship, and the lawyer may propose changes to the non-compete clause that could reduce these restrictions. With the help of experienced legal advisers, employers should regularly review their existing non-compete agreements as well as their standard forms (types) of new non-competition rules in order to ensure the effectiveness and enforcement of their agreements. Since its rejection, the Copeland opinion has been a leading force in the application of non-competition law, a condition that appears to be stable for the foreseeable future. Missouri law attempts to address these concerns with respect to the enforcement of non-compete rules. Therefore, competition prohibitions are generally applicable as long as they are appropriate, meaning that they “are no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer”. Thus, the Missouri courts have held that these agreements must be closely adapted geographically and over time. In particular, competition prohibitions cannot only protect the employer against competition from a former worker, unless that protection relates to trade secrets and contacts with the employer`s clients.

Copeland has limited the circumstances in which national competition authorities are applicable. However, the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the Missouri courts recognized that the consideration for the agreement was the continuation of employment, in which the employee still has access to property and relationships that could be protected. [5] In JumboSack Corp. v Buyck, 407 S.W.3d 51 (2013), he stated that the employee had “obtained access to the employer`s new and existing clients in return for his commitment not to compete, as well as for the continuation of employment, salary and commissions after hiring.” Missouri`s competition prohibitions are generally enforceable to the extent necessary to protect the employer`s trade secrets and customers. Restrictive covenants are a standard part of selling a business. If you own a business or LLC, you must sign one as a primary employee and owner or stakeholder. If you buy the business, you are entitled to a firm restrictive agreement from your seller`s partner or business owner. In the event of a large and complex sale, the seller`s main employees could also be asked to sign a non-competition clause. The end of the year is a good time to review these agreements and take the necessary steps to keep them legally compliant and up-to-date. In TLC Vision (USA) Corp. v. Freeman, 2012 WL 5398671 (E.D.

On November 2, 2012), the Eastern District of Missouri largely imposed a competition agreement against a group of former employees based in Oklahoma. The five former employees left their employer to start a new company that runs refractory ophthalmic surgery centers in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. They were parties to employment contracts that prevented them from competing in the Tulsa and Oklahoma City markets for a year, obtaining referral sources, and recruiting other TLC employees. The agreements contained provisions relating to the administration of Missouri law and the approval of the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts with respect to disputes that might arise from such treaties. . . .