In Table 6, we examine the use of non-compete obligations depending on whether or not mandatory arbitration is applied in the institution. These results suggest that employers seeking binding arbitration are also much more likely to use non-compete clauses for some or all of their employees. This is perhaps not surprising, because in practice, non-compete obligations are very similar to binding arbitration agreements, as they deprive workers of future rights that depend on certain events. These results suggest that employers who require their employees to enter into some sort of restrictive contract are more likely to require their employees to sign additional restrictive contracts. When selling a business, it is typical for a buyer to include in a purchase agreement the requirement that the seller does not operate the same type of business in a particular geographic area for a certain period of time. Whether or not these types of non-compete obligations are enforceable, and to what extent the courts will enforce them, varies considerably from state to state. In addition, there is evidence that the use of non-competition clauses is common at all levels of compensation and in all positions. Researchers from the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan, Evan Starr, J.J. Prescott and Norman Bishara, recently released the results of a survey of more than 11,500 workers that found that 18 percent of U.S.
workers — 28 million Americans — are currently subject to a non-compete clause and that 38 percent of workers signed a non-compete clause at some point in their lives.25 24. I am in the process of negotiating a non-compete obligation. Are there certain things I should ask? Whether it is legal for your employer to deny you a job or fire you depends on the facts of each individual case and varies from state to state, depending on the laws of each state. It may also depend on the adequacy of the proposed pact not to be competitive. In addition, the employer can claim any actual damages or losses it claims because the employee left in breach of the duty not to compete – this could include loss of customer profits, loss of secret information about the employer, and similar losses. In response to the controversy, some state legislators have proposed amendments to limit the unequal bargaining power of non-compete clauses: (1) a shorter duration of the non-compete period and (2) employers required to pay an employee for the loss of wages from the time of termination of employment until the employee finds a new job.  Other States have decided that certain non-compete obligations are unenforceable because they constitute an accession treaty or are manifestly inappropriate.  At the federal level, Congress passed the Ladder Act.  It remains to be seen whether non-compete obligations have a future for US companies. Yet corporate franchises often claim that a franchisor and its franchisees should be subject to a different standard because they act as a unit and not as a competitor. .