On May 18, 2016, the Connecticut legislature referred Public Law 16-95 (the “Law”) to the Governor for signature. The governor is expected to sign the law in the coming weeks. As soon as it does, it will come into force on July 1, 2016. The law codifies, among other things, the rules for non-competitive agreements with physicians, which differ from the case analysis rule that has been applied to these agreements in the past. Hospitals and medical practices should be aware of these new standards, which affect non-competitors who were closed before and after the law came into force on July 1. If a non-competition agreement is fair and reasonable, it may be applicable. Under Connecticut law, a non-compete clause can only be imposed on a former employee if it is “reasonable.” What is “reasonable” for a non-compete clause is determined by a five-part test. The parties are: the law confirms the application of an analysis of the adequacy to these agreements, but finds that “[d] it, which tries to force a contract not to face competition, carries the burden of proof in each proceeding.”  The law thus imposes the burden of proof on the hospital, employer or practice in order to answer affirmatively that the federal government, which is not in competition, is appropriate — even if a physician takes legal action to challenge the applicability of a non-competition agreement. This transfer of the burden of proof applies to all non-competing physicians, not just those who are executed after the law comes into force. At first glance, such agreements seem very useful.
The sudden loss of a major seller, for example, often creates a triple shame. First, an experienced member of the sales team has disappeared, along with an in-depth knowledge of your business, products, pricing policies and customers. Competition bans serve two purposes: protect your proprietary information and limit your employees` ability to work for your competitors. Courts are generally more likely to enforce your efforts to protect your proprietary information. They are not interested in limiting an employee`s ability to work. Some agreements define certain cities or states or regions where the employer operates. Others indicate a restriction radius, for example.B. “within 50 miles of Hartford.” In both cases, an overshoot can tip the agreement, even if the employee signs it voluntarily.
If the 50-mile radius covers three cities where you are not doing business or probably are not going to do business, the agreement may be void. Non-compete agreements are a fairly common instrument used by Connecticut employers. It is a contract between an employee and an employer that explicitly limits a worker`s ability to compete with the employer during or after employment. They generally prevent workers from competing in markets or occupations that would be in direct competition with the employer. They are very common in management and technical fields. Any non-competitive agreement must be appropriate in space. Large employers define geographic scope around the world and at the federal level. Small employers use more localized areas, such as 15 miles from any office, an example would be a real estate agency. The courts here in Connecticut will look at that as a factor, but that is not the control factor. Courts will not impose a non-compete ban if the company has multiple offices in Connecticut and limits staff to 15 miles from each Connecticut office; Employment in Connecticut is virtually prohibited. William Raveis Real Estate is a company that uses this type of geographic area of competition.
Recently, the Court of Justice informed Raveis that this form of agreement was not applicable. A non-compete agreement is a contract between you and your employer. It may be presented to you at the time of hiring or after hiring.