The Court also found that the remedy, even if it is based on such unavoidable disclosure, where irreparable harm includes not only the disclosure of trade secrets, but also the violation of a binding non-competition agreement, is insufficient, since such harm would be difficult, if not impossible to measure. Id. at 12. The court also found it important that the worker, as Lavin did here, accepted that his failure constituted irreparable harm. The same justification applies in this case. The Court finds that it has demonstrated that it has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damage without any assistance of any kind. Overall, the justice system tries to avoid a situation in which a worker feels “obliged” to stay with a particular employer. Protecting the information an employee knows is one thing — literally, preventing that employee from going to a competitor, if they don`t want to stay in your business anymore, it`s another. All this comes from the idea that non-competition bans are documents that try to follow a very delicate line and together protect the rights of workers and employers.
Under Missouri law, non-competition prohibitions are enforced where, in the present circumstances, they are proportionate and serve legitimate interests. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C v. Barton, 614 F.3d 893, 908 (8th cir 2010). The applicants argue that the agreement is too broad and therefore unenforceable, as it limits Lavin`s employment opportunities for one year in both the United States and Canada. The Court finds that the disputed agreement constitutes a narrow effort by the ESI to keep its information secret and maintain the competitive advantage, and that its scope is more than limited. Here, Lavin`s continued access to ESI`s confidential information and business secrets was solid and, as noted above, he was familiar with ESI`s most detailed confidential information and trade secrets regarding its customer relations and goodwill, customer contracts and business strategies. “An explicit agreement not to compete can be reached for employees who have significant customer contact. There is no need to prove that there is a secret list of clients. Emerson Elec. Co. Rogers, 418 F.3d 841, 845 (8. Cir.
2005) (quote Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 75 (M. 1985)). For many organizations, non-competition bans are an effective way to achieve both of these goals at the same time. But it is also a subject that involves a broad disposition of various misunderstandings and points of confusion – that Jeremy Goldstein`s lawyer has been lenient enough to devote some of his time to addressing. Jeremy Goldstein felt it was important to point out that non-competition bans cannot be 100% restrictive. Much is due to the fact that the justice system wants to encourage employers to design the types of agreements that are “reasonable” and “realistic,” which means that they should not have requirements that involve awareness that cannot be explicitly justified. In addition, “[t]he problem regularly finds irreparable harm when a non-competition agreement says it constitutes irreparable harm.” Panera, LLC v. Nettles, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 101473, at 10-11 (E.D. Mo. August 3, 2016). That`s the case here. Lavin agreed with ESI that “violation of a provision of this agreement results in irreparable harm and damage to the company, that there is no appropriate remedy for such an infringement and that the company should be entitled to a specified benefit, assistance of omission and other appropriate remedies, in addition to the remedies provided by law. , as well as the company`s legal fees and fees.” (Doc.