Over the years, the application of competition agreements has caused many problems, as the courts have found that a non-competition agreement cannot prevent anyone from practising their chosen profession in the Community in which they live. Since most traditional competition agreements were drafted for geographical reasons (i.e. non-competitors within 25 miles of the former employer), many courts have routinely struck down the entire agreement on the basis of this consideration. In Orca, a public relations company, Orca Communications, has placed Ann Noder as president. Noder had no professional public relations experience before entering Orca and was trained from the top spot by the company. When Noder was hired, she signed a non-compete agreement preventing her from advertising, requesting or providing conflicting services to one of Orca`s competitors. In addition, the non-compete agreement contained a confidentiality agreement prohibiting Noder from using or disclosing Orca`s confidential information without the company`s consent. The agreement defined “confidential information” as knowledge or information not known to the public or the public relations industry that Noder learned from his employment at Orca and the activities of his clients or potential clients. The provision excluded “public” information and information “easily accessible to the public in a written publication,” but contained information that was only available through “extensive research of published literature” or that was to be “collected” from a series of publications and sources. The confidentiality provision did not include geographical restrictions, but noders related to anywhere in the world, at any time or up to 12 months after the end of their employment, regardless of the length of time a court deemed appropriate (a classic example of a step-down provision described above). It is important for companies to consider entering into similar agreements with consultants, independent contractors, etc., when they have access to a company`s customers and/or confidential business information. The period that would be acceptable to the courts for a competition or non-counterfeiting agreement is generally linked to the general doctrine of fairness. We impose competition and non-piracy agreements to prevent former employees from unjustifiably using confidential information about the Agency`s products and their customers, which were disclosed to staff during its active activity within the Agency.

We should not have a problem with the employee using his or her knowledge to pursue his or her career. But they should not be allowed to use the information for which they have been compensated by the Agency on the Agency`s clients. The doctrine of fairness would prohibit competition or acceptance of these customers for a “reasonable” time that the agency`s information is public or become “stale” and is no longer useful for the collection of client policies. A second point concerns a reasonable period of time for the Agency to replace the relationship management role for which the former employee was compensated by another current agency officer. This “equal conditions” to allow open competition between the Agency and the former employee. As a general rule, the period that is acceptable to provide up-to-date information about the Agency is “stale,” and to allow for a fair replacement of the role of relationship management, is the balance of current political periods and two successive extensions between two and three years. On October 17, 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals significantly increased the burden employers must place to enforce a non-compete agreement against a former employer.