Re: non-compete

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:32:37 -0400 "A. Joseph Ross"
<lawyer@attorneyross.com> writes:
> On 17 Apr 2002 at 13:32, Dave Faneuf wrote:
> 
> > I attended an AFTRA function a few years back and Jerry Williams 
> was
> > there, we discussed a number of items and the non-compete did come 
> up.
> > IIRC Jerry said that the court ruled that 90 days was a 
> "reasonable"
> > period for the non-compete and ruled that Jerry could continue on 
> WBZ. It
> > may have been a ruling that applied only to that particulare case 
> but I
> > can't imagine that it wouldn't have had an impact on future 
> rulings.  That
> > of course was prior to the approval of the current law. df
> 
> My recollection of the decision is that Jerry had been out of town 
> in Chicago for a couple of 
> years, and the court just said that was enough.  I don't remember 
> any mention of 90 days, 
> and 90 days wouldn't have been very relevant.
> 
You're right, he had been in Chicago I believe but apparently had a
multi-year non-compete that was still in place when he returned to
Boston.  IIRC Jerry told us the judge would go along with 90 days but
that's all which had obviously already gone by the boards.  It was an
early morning meeting so I could have still been fuzzy LOL
df