While Mississippi does not have a legal system of non-competition, its general approach is similar to that of Texas in its concept. Non-competition prohibitions become unfavourable in Mississippi and are not applicable unless they are well worded in terms of geographic scope and duration. [1] The courts also assess “the impact of the provision on employer rights, worker`s rights and public rights” and recoup these respective interests. [2] See Thames v. Davis – Goulet Ins, Inc. 420, 2d 1041, 1043 (Miss 1982) (Non-competition prohibitions are “carefully reviewed, carefully examined, viewed against, interpreted rigorously and reluctantly”); but see the bus. Commc`ns, Inc. v. Banks, 91 So.3d 1, 10-11 (Miss. Ct. App.

2011) (application of non-competition agreements that have been reasonable in duration and geographic scope). A non-competition agreement should “clearly determine the extent of the worker`s authorized commercial activity after the termination of the employment relationship.” [15] The law on agreements between employer and worker, not to compete, not to recruit employees or clients and not to denigrate the employer, is not complicated. Non-competition clauses are assessed differently from non-invitation and non-disappearance clauses. Therefore, this contribution will initially focus on the “non-compete” clause and will address the “non-invitation” and “non-disappearance” clauses in a subsequent article. You have signed a non-compete agreement with your employer. Now you want to go and work somewhere else. What are your options? 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 Act does not define a duration that, in itself, is considered appropriate so that alliances do not compete. The list below shows as an example that The Mississippi courts have imposed non-competition prohibitions with different permanent restrictions, emphasizing the more comprehensive analysis that has been reviewed in previous sections, raising the question of whether these agreements are generally applicable. The law, in most parts, does not want you to be hindered in your efforts to succeed. Many states have gone so far as to adopt statutes that automatically out-of-competition non-competition bans. But Mississippi is not one of them. The first issue of the law is that, because agreements are generally interpreted unfavourably and rigorously, the formulation of errors, ambiguities or inappropriate restrictions in the agreement ultimately leads to the inapplicability of the restriction. In the face of such a review of the agreement, it was not wise for an employer to develop its own agreement. Lawyers and judges use their own language to some extent, which creates an expectation of the words, language and wording that must stop.

In Senza categoria. Bookmark the permalink.