Under both, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the various state Uniform Trade Secrets Acts, an owner of trade secrets must take “reasonable measures” or reasonable steps to protect the trade secrets from being disclosed.
While the enforcement of non-compete agreements around the country remains strong, the courts are looking closer at whether an employee will suffer “undue hardship” if his or her non-compete is enforced. Thus, employers should avoid taking unreasonable positions in court and be prepared to explain why enforcing a particular non-competition agreement will not prevent an employee from earning a living.
To prevail on its claim to collect on a promissory note, a lender must prove (1) the existence of the promissory note in question, (2) that the alleged recipient of the funds signed the note, (3) that the lender is the owner or holder of the note, and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.
In Texas, a 5 to 10 year non-compete agreement related to a sale of business is the norm. n addition to the non-compete restrictions in the sale documents, those sellers who stay employed by the buyer after the sale often sign a second non-compete agreement as part of their employment package, which does not kick in until after their employment with the buyer terminates.
A recent decision from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Texas serves as a cautionary tale for Texas employers seeking to enforce their non-compete agreements. In this case, a company that provided surgical assistants to surgical facilities and physicians sued a former employee for breaching his 2-year non-compete covenant, which prohibited him from “in any way” offering his services to any “client institutions or client surgeons” of his former employer.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified that non-employees do not have standing to sue under Title VII, even if they are an object of intentional retaliation.