Re:Re: Re:Re: Non-competes

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

--- Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com> wrote:
> I don't think this law is as weak as you believe it

>Dan writes:
>Until it is tested in court, we are only left with
>opinions.  Maybe you are right, but what cause is not
>defined in the law so until a court defines "cause," I
>think the scenario that I described is a definite
>possibility.  I think my opinion is correct because
>that language was added at the request of the Maine
>Association of Broadcasters and was strongly opposed
>by the proponents of the law.  As result, I do think
>it makes a difference.

Dave writes:
Possiblity yes, probability I don't think so.  Even though the law doesn't spell out what "just cause" is or isn't I think (and the legal types will correct me if i'm wrong) there is an accepted standard that can be used as a benchmark.  Just cause, in my mind, would be something like theft, drunkeness/drug abuse, insubordination or violation of any other stated policy that might be in a policy manual assuming one exists and is not in violation of the law etc.
The fact that the MAB was able to insert the "cause" language and that supporters objected doesn't really surprise me, if I were the MAB I would try to get as many qualifiers into the language as I could and if I were the author I would want untouched.
df