The law of non-competes in Minnesota is entirely court-made, in contrast to states such as Wisconsin and North Dakota, where it is governed by statute. See Wis. Stat. § 103.465; N.D. Cent. Code, § 9-08-06. Non-competes are “disfavored” under Minnesota law for being a partial restraint on trade. As such, they are to be strictly construed, with any ambiguities interpreted against the employer. Lemon v. Gressman (Minn.App. 1999).
Acceptable interests include (1) protecting against deflection of trade; (2) protecting confidential business information and trade secrets; and (3) protecting customer goodwill. The question boils down to whether the departing employee can hurt the former employer.
I've only seen one issue of a non-compete being enforced is when a reporter went to a competitor and took the same job and was accused of taking confidential information to his new employer. The judge ruled against the reporter and banned him from working at the competitor for one year:
Higgs wrote that given Ridder's past conduct and his cavalier attitude toward his use and disclosure of confidential Pioneer Press information, it seems to the court that his past actual misappropriation is a good indicator of possible future use of that information.
The court said there is also a substantial threat that Ridder will further misappropriate confidential Pioneer Press information, or use the confidential information in the future.
The judge ruled that restraining Ridder from further misappropriating confidential Pioneer Press information is necessary to prevent further injury to the St. Paul paper's competitive position in the industry.
Make a note the story is from 2007. A decade ago and I haven't seen any case remotely close to this since then.
http://horowlaw.com/employment-law/non-compete-law-in-minnes...
The law of non-competes in Minnesota is entirely court-made, in contrast to states such as Wisconsin and North Dakota, where it is governed by statute. See Wis. Stat. § 103.465; N.D. Cent. Code, § 9-08-06. Non-competes are “disfavored” under Minnesota law for being a partial restraint on trade. As such, they are to be strictly construed, with any ambiguities interpreted against the employer. Lemon v. Gressman (Minn.App. 1999).
Acceptable interests include (1) protecting against deflection of trade; (2) protecting confidential business information and trade secrets; and (3) protecting customer goodwill. The question boils down to whether the departing employee can hurt the former employer.
I've only seen one issue of a non-compete being enforced is when a reporter went to a competitor and took the same job and was accused of taking confidential information to his new employer. The judge ruled against the reporter and banned him from working at the competitor for one year:
Higgs wrote that given Ridder's past conduct and his cavalier attitude toward his use and disclosure of confidential Pioneer Press information, it seems to the court that his past actual misappropriation is a good indicator of possible future use of that information.
The court said there is also a substantial threat that Ridder will further misappropriate confidential Pioneer Press information, or use the confidential information in the future.
The judge ruled that restraining Ridder from further misappropriating confidential Pioneer Press information is necessary to prevent further injury to the St. Paul paper's competitive position in the industry.
Make a note the story is from 2007. A decade ago and I haven't seen any case remotely close to this since then.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/09/18/ridderruling