Finally, workers should bear in mind that non-competition clauses are contracts to be entered into. When a new company buys out its current employer, it is likely that the new company has been granted the rights to enforce the non-compete agreement against the employee of the former company and has the power to take legal action against the terms of the original non-competition agreement. The establishment of competitive competition is an essential element: in general, the most common problem in non-competition agreements is how long they last. Experience shows a general rule that non-competition obligations of six months to two years are likely appropriate, while longer-term controls are subject to more rigorous scrutiny. In contexts other than employment, such as the sale of a business, non-competition prohibitions of more than two years are generally applicable. Non-competition agreements must be reasonable. They cannot last too long, cover too much geographic area or prohibit former employees from operating too many types of businesses. While competition prohibitions protect trade secrets very effectively, the legal system gives a premium to the right of every person to earn a living. This is why a non-competition agreement under judicial review must overcome certain legal obstacles. Clearly, agreements under Kentucky laws that do not compete may deter companies that lose employees from losing their confidential business information. Each company wants to prevent employees who have access to sensitive information or trade secrets from passing it on to their competitors. As a result of the Creech decision, the key question arises as to whether your company`s employees received something valuable in exchange for signing a non-compete agreement.

Many employers already comply with this test because they grant their employees, in exchange for their agreements, one or more concrete benefits at the time of signing or shortly after: recruitment to a new position, additional remuneration, promotion, obligation to provide additional or specialized training, job protection, etc. What does Kentucky`s non-competition ban law say? In a major 2014 decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court clarified the Non-Competition Act in a case called Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown. Kentucky courts have always rigorously interpreted competition agreements between workers and employers against employers and workers. This means that all ambiguities or other issues are resolved in an inability to compete agreement for the benefit of the employee. That`s why it`s always been important for Kentucky employers to pay attention to developing non-competitive agreements. This is still the case today, following a 2014 Kentucky Supreme Court case that significantly changed the requirements of non-compete agreements reached by Kentucky employees. In Charles T. Creech, Inc. v.

Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345, (Ky. 2014), the Tribunal found that “continued employment” is no longer sufficiently taken into account for workers who are required to sign non-compete agreements. The case marks a clear abandonment of Kentucky`s earlier jurisprudence. 2. if non-competition prohibitions are part of a larger employment contract, which sets out other conditions of employment; In many competitive companies, employers often require their employees to sign prohibitions on competition with their company as a condition of employment. A non-compete agreement is an agreement or contract between a worker and an employer that limits a worker`s ability to work in the same field or geographic area for a period of time, after termination of employment, termination of the employment relationship or retirement. In general, these agreements were deemed enforceable by Kentucky Courts, whether the employee ended voluntarily or involuntarily. What about Kentucky? In a major 2014 decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court clarified aspects of the Prohibition