Minimum Wages
Noncompetition agreements
- bonus restriction agreements
- applicability of restrictions
Notes of Decisions
"Initial employment", for purposes of this section, means when the employe starts work. Olsten Corp. v. Sommers, 534 F Supp 395 (1982)
In action to enforce noncompetition covenant, where evidence showed defendants spent part of their time contacting existing customers of plaintiff and as result of these contacts customers were more likely to come to defendants initially and that when defendants formed their own business 14 of their 27 customers were former clients of plaintiff, defendant's customer contracts gave plaintiff legitimate interest entitled to protection by noncompetition agreement. Olsten Corp. v. Sommers, 534 F Supp 395 (1982)
This section precluded enforcement of noncompetition agreement not entered into at time of employe's initial employment. Pacific Veterinary Hospital v. White, 72 Or App 533, 696 P2d 570 (1985)
Agreement prohibiting employee from soliciting businesses targeted for marketing by employer is noncompetition agreement. Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective Equipment for Oregon Industry, Inc., 334 Or 55, 45 P3d 114 (2002)
Employee refusing to sign unenforceable noncompetition agreement is not pursuing employment-related right. Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective Equipment for Oregon Industry, Inc., 334 Or 55, 45 P3d 114 (2002)
"Bona fide advancement" means job content and responsibilities of employee materially increase and status of employee within company improves. Nike, Inc. v. McCarthy, 379 F3d 576 (9th Cir. 2004)
Where employee contracts to work for same employer for period subsequent to scheduled termination of employment, whether contract period is new "initial employment" depends on whether employment capacity during contract period substantially differs in nature from employment capacity prior to termination. McGee v. Coe Manufacturing Co., 203 Or App 10, 125 P3d 26 (2005)
As used in this section, "voidable" means that employee who wants to be relieved of what employee believes to be unenforceable noncompetition obligation must take affirmative steps to invalidate that obligation; otherwise, obligation remains valid. Bernard v. S.B., Inc., 270 Or App 710, 350 P3d 460 (2015), Sup Ctreview denied
Plaintiff employee's failure to take steps to void noncompetition agreement, where noncompetition agreement was executed in violation of two-week notice requirement, precludes plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with economic relations. Bernard v. S.B., Inc., 270 Or App 710, 350 P3d 460 (2015), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
58 OLR 336 (1979); 88 OLR 515 (2009)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Wage and Hour Commission jurisdiction to regulate governmental entity's employment of minors, (1979) Vol 39, p 489