Re: Response from Bruce Schwoegler

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:44:53 EDT Dibmaine@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 4/15/02 1:02:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> tklaundry@juno.com writes:
> 
> << and which restricts the right of such employee or individual to 
> obtain  employment in a specified geographic area for a specified
period of 
> time  after termination of employment of the employee by the employer
or 
> by  termination of the employment relationship by mutual agreement of 
> the  employer and the employee or by termination of the employment
>  relationship by the expiration of the contract or agreement, shall 
> be  void and unenforceable with respect to such provision.  >>
> 
> I think Bruce's take on the law is correct.  I read the law to mean 
> that the  non-compete does not apply if the employee quits, the
contract 
> expires, or  the employer and employee agree to terminate the contract.
 If the 
> employee  walks out while a contract is still in effect, the
non-compete is 
> still  enforceable.
> 
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

If the employee walks out while the contract is still in effect that
would be breach of contract would it not?  And in most cases
professionals don't walk out on contracts.  If that is what Bruce means
by Bolting then he is probably right, the employer could take legal
action,  but if he is talking about an employee moving on after his/her
contract is over then no non-compete is enforceable unless, such as
recently with Harvey Leonard,  the contract ends and the employee moves
on.  In Harvey's case I would assume that his contract that expired April
15 2002 was signed and in place prior to Nov 7, 1998 when the non compete
law took effect.  
df