The 1998 decision application group, Inc. vs. Hunter Group, Inc. vs. Hunter Group, Inc. In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to agree to a one-year non-compete clause. The treaty states that it is governed by Maryland law and must be interpreted under it. A Maryland employee then went to see a competitor in California. When the new California employer filed a lawsuit in California state court to invalidate the requirement not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its companies so that they can hire the personnel of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers seeking employment in California. [Citation required] The application of non-competition rules in the state of Florida is quite common. Some law firms rely on these agreements and represent workers, employers and potential new employers of a worker currently subject to a non-compete clause. The agreement should not be too broad and, in general, difficult to implement if it lasts more than two years.
 However, Florida courts will rarely refuse to impose a non-compete clause because of their length or geographic scope. Instead, Florida law requires courts to affix a “blue pencil” to an inadmissiblely broad or extended non-compete clause to enforce it within Fla`s limits. Stat. § 542.335.  Even if the agreement is part of a general contract of employment, there is a possibility of prior infringement by an employer. As a result, the non-competition clause of the Treaty becomes inapplicable. However, recent case law in the Florida courts of appeals has undermined the usefulness of the previous defense against offenses.  However, an NQF that is too broad can prevent an employee from working elsewhere. Originally, English customary law considered that such a restriction was not applicable according to the doctrine of public policy.  Current case law allows for exceptions, but generally applies ACSs only to the extent necessary to protect the employer.
Most legal systems in which such contracts have been reviewed by the courts have considered NQFs to be legally binding as long as the clause provides for reasonable restrictions with respect to the geographical area and the period during which an employee of a company is not allowed to compete.  10. I was asked to sign a non-competition clause after I had already started with the employer. Is it legal? Almost all non-competition cases are decided in the context of an application for an injunction (TRO) or injunction. The courts decide whether to prevent the worker from engaging in a competitive activity and may claim damages, including, in some cases, legal fees. If an employer brings an action against a worker to enforce the non-compete clause, it can be costly if they go to trial, but most complaints are settled and a negotiated settlement between the parties is being worked out. . . .