The issue of the legal fee clause is also a topic that, if a potential employee/employee has not yet signed the proposed competition/non-application agreement, the employer may be willing to remove or revise such a clause. Also note that not all of these clauses are written in the same way (sometimes the clause, if included, is written to favour only the employer, and sometimes it is written to favour the dominant party). However, my preference, on behalf of the employees, is almost always that there be no legal fee clause in the non-competitive/non-conservative agreement. Will some court proceedings in Illinois conclude that two years or more of employment will be sufficient as an appropriate legal consideration to support a non-compete agreement? 3. Why do some Illinois courts argue that mere “rental” may not be a sufficient legal consideration to support a non-compete agreement? The passage of this law was influenced by the latest news – and outrage – of the Illinois franchise, Jimmy John`s, which required their employees to sign a non-compete clause that provided that these employees be excluded from work for other sandwich stores within two miles – which also prompted the attorneys general to take action against Jimmy Johns. Some employers try to force workers not to sign a non-competition obligation until the worker has worked for the employer for a long period of time and, in certain circumstances, such an agreement does not engage the employee. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Confederation was invalid and unenforceable because it would exclude the worker from any employment or other relationship with a company acting directly or indirectly in the employer`s affairs. The federal government would prohibit the worker from being employed by a company that also works in the same areas as the employer, whether or not it is a real competitor. In addition, the federal government would prevent the worker from holding any position in another company in the employer sector, and not just a role similar to the same position or position with the employer. The employee, who was a director, argued that the Confederation would even prevent him from working as a janitor in another company in the area. The court agreed and found that “… The Confederation would clearly prevent Dumrauf from playing any more plausible role with another player in the sector, no matter how far away it is from the actual competition with Medix….
Such a ban is unenforceable. The non-competition clause is not applicable because it would have prohibited the worker from working in any capacity for a company in the same company as the employer and would therefore have been an unacceptable restriction of competition in itself. Thus, the court granted the worker`s request to dismiss the employer`s complaint on the grounds that the federal state was broad enough to be inopportune and unenforceable on his face. The court also refused to “give blue” (edit) the agreement because the scope is so broad that it is “manifestly unfair”. This decision is instructive for Illinois employers, many of whom use uncontested agreements with a language similar to that which the court issued in this case.