In my view, this type of restriction is the easiest non-compete to defeat. Generally, you can't prevent someone from walking out the door and working for a competitor simply because they're good at it. The reasons should be related to some trade secret, confidential or proprietary information that belongs to the employer which was used in the employee's training and would likely be used in the employee's new position. Generic training about common knowledge (in the industry) design won't cut it. I might add that I've never heard of an employer recovering "training costs" from an employee that either quit or was fired. How do you quantify that? Second, if an employer is entitled to the training costs from a failed employment situation, is the employee entitled to compensation for the months and perhaps years of his/her life spent with a dead end job? I'm curious to know if your agreements have ever been tested in court. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Dion" <martin.dionat_private> To: "'John Starta'" <johnat_private>; <securityjobsat_private> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: RE: How common are NCA's? > Good evening, > > As an employer in that particular niche, I also do ask employee to sign > those NCA clause. The most important thing with NCA is the definition of > the domain where the consultancy firm evolve and in which context you will > be providing services to this firm so the protected area of business is > clear to everybody. > > For example, if I train a guy on firewalls, I found it normal that for a > formal period of one year he wont be able to work for one of my competitor, > but I wont block him to work for a university as a firewall administrator. > Another clause will protect me for the cost that came from that training. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 10:36:37 PDT