Another reality is that an executive with experience and training is more easily limited by competition than a worker who works every hour. An employer is faced with a bitter struggle against a laid-off worker who, due to limited training and experience, cannot find other employment. The court has the power to strike a „fair balance between the rights of the employer and the worker“ in order to determine whether the application of the agreement has a more repressive effect on the worker than the lack of enforcement on the economic interests of the employer. Under normal circumstances, competition against an hourly worker is unlikely to be enforced. Worse still, if other workers on time „learn“ that competition is unworkable, other renegades may follow. If you are considering imposing hour-wide competition bans, you should carefully decide your fight, for example. B if a group of employees makes a concerted effort to walk and compete together. The Mississippi Supreme Court „has established that restrictive alliances restrict trade and individual freedom and are not the favorites of the law… Kain v. Cain, 967 So.2d 654 (Miss.Ct.App 2007). Since such agreements are „not favourites,“ they must be interpreted „strictly“ and the company wishing to impose a non-competition clause „carries the burden of demonstrating that the restriction is appropriate in terms of the economic interest to be protected.“ Employment contracts used by employers to limit a worker`s ability to compete with the employer by stealing customers or trade secrets are non-compete agreements, also known as non-competition or competition restriction agreements.
Enforceable agreements must strike a balance between protecting the employer`s legitimate business interests from an unfair competitive advantage and the worker`s right to work in a sector for which he or she is trained. In general, the courts decide what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate by examining the nature and size of the business, the duration and geographic area of the application of the restrictions, and whether the worker received a reasonable consideration or benefit at the time the contract was signed. The Mississippi courts have held that restrictive agreements are applicable where conditions are appropriate and necessary to protect certain commercial interests of the employer, such as. B as the client`s goodwill or investment in the worker`s specialized training. Factors taken into account in determining adequacy include the harshness that an agreement imposes on the former worker, its impact on the community, and the time, territorial and activity constraints of the former worker. Mississippi`s analysis of the geographic delineation of non-competition prohibitions focuses on whether the restrictions on workers are depressing or impose unreasonable hardship. Below are some concrete examples of Mississippi jurisprudence: the determination of the validity of non-competition prohibitions has been left to the state courts. In a 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi, it was recognized that the state Supreme Court considers non-competition prohibitions to be restrictions on trade and individual freedom.