[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re:Re:Re: Non-competes



---------- Dan Billings <billingsdan@yahoo.com> writes:
>snip<
>Maine's law is kind of weak.  It only bars
>non-competes that exceed the length of the contract. 
>As you can see below, a station can fire an employee
>for fault and still enforce a non-compete.

>599. Broadcasting industry contract 
 
>     1. Definition. As used in this section, unless
>the context otherwise indicates, "broadcasting
>industry contract" means an employment contract
>between a person and a legal entity that owns one or
>more television stations or networks or one or more
>radio stations or networks, excluding an employment
>contract with a sales representative. [1999, c. 406,
>1 (new).] 
 
>     2. Presumed unreasonable. A broadcasting industry
>contract provision that requires an employee or
>prospective employee to refrain from obtaining
>employment in a specified geographic area for a
>specified period of time following expiration of the
>contract or upon termination of employment without
>fault of the employee is presumed to be unreasonable.
>[1999, c. 406, 1 (new).] 
 

Dave writes:
I am confused by your response.  While a broadcaster is under contract that person can not leave the station to take another job anywhere, that's the same everywhere.  That doesn't have anything to do with non-competes.  Non-compete clauses come into play after a contract has expired and a person decides to move on.  I don't see anything in the two provisions you posted that says anything differnt.  The only thing that I can see that could be argued is that an employee terminated for cause might be prevented from getting another job within the geograpical area for the duration of his/her contract but not beyond, that's not a non-compete clause.  Am I missing something?  
df