Non-compete agreements

Good evening all, I have a question regarding the legality, and

enforcability, particularly in the Washington DC metro region, of a

non compete agreement.

Specifically, and at this point hypothetically, If I sign on with a

photographer, or broker, and they have me sign a non compete

agreement, let's say for a wedding photographer, Why must I destroy my

ability to generate income after a suitable apprentice period?

Following that point, let's suppose I was better than my boss.

Suppose, sorry this is the last one, that business picks up as a

result of my employment. Must I be restricted to a period of time

where I can not generate any kind of income in a specialty I have

shown promise and talent? My wife is an attorney and has no real

answers, so I ask all of you, particularly in the United States-DC

Metro Region, what you think, better yet, what you know about this

kind of agreement.

Sorry for the long post, and I'm turning in, but I look forward to

reading your responses tomorrow. Thank you for your input.

Best,

Daniel

Speak to several attorneys. I'm sure it's case specific but my understanding is SOME non compete aggrements are just too restrictive to hold up in court, while others are written in such a way that they ARE upholdable. I know, that's not much help.

When I lived in California, non-compete agreements for employees were not enforceable.

i moved to another state and there they were. So state law will rule in these cases. i do

know several who have refused, actually avoided, signing them-never said anything just

didn't sign it. In a wedding business, it seems quite ridiculous to me since any client will

hopefully not be return business--what the intent of non-compete agreements are for--

not to steal my clients because of the knowledge you gained while employed by me. I

think it would be fully reasonable for you to sign that you will not pass out personal

marketing material while you are at a wedding on behalf of your employer and that you

should pass out their material--a matter of ethics I would think. The most important

thing is to not sign an agreement that would make you have to relocate just to work.

Daniel-- Non-compete agreements are virtual slave contracts. I would never sign one. In Maryland, there was legislation to have them outlawed, but I'm not sure what happened to that.

 

The problem I have with them is this-- If the employee is good enough to hire, then they are good enough to bring with them elements that will enhance the company. If the employee leaves the company, will the company stop using all the information and innovations that the employee brought to it? Yeah, right. They'll keep on benifitting from everything the employee brought.

 

Often what the potential employer is afraid of is the employee walking off with long-term clients. My take on that is that if the company is bad enough that the clients would want to leave, then they deserve to lose them.

 

Just make up another contract stating that if you shold leave the company for any reason, the company will not use any innovation or idea or mode of work that you brought to the company or contact or do business with any client that you brought to them. Then tell them that if they sign that, you'll sign the non-compete.

 

Best of luck --BC-

This isn't legal advice - note the disclaimer at the end.

 

D.C. is OK with enforcing (at least some) non-compete agreements (you or your wife could look up 150 F.Supp 2d 67 - a D.C. case) But they won't if it is is "unconscionable."

 

This generally means that the agreement must be limited in scope just enough to perfect the employer's interest. I.e., it can't ban you from doing wedding photos east of the Mississippie river (geography). Or it can't ban you from doing ALL kinds of photography for profit (scope). And it can't be for very long - a 20 year ban would certainly be unreasonable. 6 months - 3 years is probably the limit of reasonableness (time).

 

Because your employer doesn't have client lists worth stealing (very common in these cases, as I understand), it seems that a non-compete agreement will need to be very limited to be upheld. This is because it won't take much to uphold your employers interests. As far as I know, using a non-compete to make someone stick around after training is illegitimate. So if your employer has no other interest than that, it is possible that NO non-compete agreement will be upheld, becuase courts will just see it as trying to make you work for them (and courts don't like that). This would be like McD's making a fry cook sign a non-compete - no way that would work.

 

I guess another interest your employer might have is in you not stealing their word-of-mouth publicity. But if you don't start telling your employer's clients to tell their friends about YOU, (or representing the work you do for your employer as if you were doing it yourself), then I don't see this problem coming up.

 

This isn't to say that a court won't uphold it. You'll need to talk to an employment lawyer in D.C. or MD for that one. I'm not a lawyer (just a law student who took employment law recently - fresh on my mind), so this is not legal advice, and you act on it AT YOUR OWN RISK. In other words, I completely dislcaim any responsibility for anything that happens if you rely on this information. This should just provide you with the right questions to ask a lawyer when making your final decision.