If a Minnesota court finds an unreasonably broad non-competition, the court can “give blue” the agreement by reducing the scope, duration and/or geographic limits of the agreement to the minimum necessary to make it appropriate. This is called the “blue pencil doctrine.” Often, a dispute over the “blue pencil doctrine” is at the heart of an action that interprets a non-compete agreement under Minnesota law. Even if the agreement is supported by an appropriate consideration and is intended to protect a legitimate interest of employers, the court can still repress certain parts of the non-competition agreement that are considered inappropriate by Minnesota law. What is a letter of omission and withdrawal? The bill would prohibit employers from prohibiting competition with all workers and even competing. All of these agreements, from the possible date of the law, would not be valid. Existing agreements would not be affected. However, despite this general prohibition, the bill appears to allow a non-competition clause of up to one year if the employer compensates the employee at the worker`s final wage rate – a concept commonly referred to as “gardening holidays”. This interlude between the total ban and the exception for gardening holidays is not clear. New employees are often required to sign competition and/or initiative agreements. Courts criticize overly broad “restrictive agreements” that unnecessarily prevent employees from working for competitors or recruiting customers after leaving the company.

Employers may have compelling reasons to enforce such agreements, including the protection of trade secrets, and must be prepared to oppose criticism when they unnecessarily limit trade. In The Hampton case, the applicant argued, and the Tribunal accepted that just because there is an employment contract between the parties at one time does not mean that there is an employment contract that the court must apply Hunt`s holding on a request for dismissal, since the main right to payment of shares under the post-closing agreement exists, even though the decision of the right may depend on the interpretation of the contract. The court stated that it was “too early to determine whether the plaintiff asserted a viable right to a violation of good faith and fair trade, because the enterprise agreement is not an employment contract. If your employer asks you to sign a non-compete agreement, talk to an experienced labour lawyer before entering into agreements. A lawyer can check the terms of the contract and advise you on some of the possible long-term effects of the agreement. Scroll down for answers to the following frequently asked questions about Minnesota`s non-compete agreements: Non-compete agreements are enforceable under Minnesota law if supported by counterparty, are necessary to protect a “legitimate commercial interest,” and are no broader than necessary in terms of scope and duration. Here`s a brief overview of what these requirements actually mean, and some Minnesota employer boards should be considered in making these agreements. Although non-competition prohibitions are often used in the sale of a business and other organizations, this contribution focuses on their use in the employment environment. What is a “legitimate employer interest” in a non-compete agreement? To be applicable under Minnesota law, a non-compete agreement must serve the legitimate interest of employers. Minnesota courts have recognized three types of legitimate employer interests: (1) the protection of employer`s confidential information and/or trade secrets; (2) the protection of the employer`s value and relationships; and (3) specialized training.

Confidential Information and Business Secrets Courts will review the employer`s restrictions in the agreement to determine whether they are narrow enough to protect those interests. When the provisions are too broad, that is, they restrict an area that is too broad a geographical area or the worker is employed for a long period of time.