Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Facts
A non-compete agreement between Bradford & Bigelow, Inc. and Mr. Bradley was signed in 2015. In general, non-compete agreements impose an employees obligation to avoid competition with the employer during or after particular employment (Kubasek et al., 2017). It successfully prevented competition between the sides during the next 12 months after termination of employment. In 2017 the company promoted the plaintiff to Vice President of Sales, Marketing, and Business Development. A new non-compete contract has not been sealed, although the plaintiff got a 60% wage increase and different job duties.
Issues
Plaintiff left the company, starting the dispute between parties whether the non-compete agreement still binds him. Bob Bradley asked the court to deem null and void the 2015 contract that included the non-compete. The court had to decide if the agreement was unenforceable.
Rules
The court should consider the material change doctrine that may prevent an employer from enforcing the non-compete agreement. According to Brody (2020), it was first discussed and declared in F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington (1968). If the conditions and terms of employment have been drastically modified following the execution, the original non-competition may be recognized as unenforceable. This doctrine is very fact-specific, focusing on remarkable changes in job titles, duties, remuneration, and promotions.
Application and Analysis
The court found the noteworthy material changes in relations between parties caused by the latters promotion back in October 2017 as critical facts. Plaintiff received a new title, altered job responsibilities together with a significantly higher wage. These particular facts were considered by the judges while applying the material change doctrine. It seems that courts usually assess the extent of a material change to decide when it should be applied. When there are minor modifications, the non-compete agreement continues its enforcement and makes post-employment restrictions valid.
Conclusion
After considering all arguments and positions, the Massachusetts court backed the plaintiff, preventing the former employer from enforcing the 2015 agreement. This big win for Bob Bradley was possible due to the courts assumption that the defendant and plaintiff entered into a new relationship in 2017 that did not have the non-compete contract.
Local Laws
There are many interesting local laws in the US that business people should know despite their insignificance at first sight. For instance, one of Floridas laws encourages dog owners to put a sign telling about their pets presence on the premises (Medrano, 2020). A sign such as Beware the Dog or Bad Dog provides an opportunity to avoid liability for possible harm caused by the dog to someone who dared to enter the premises.
In general, Chapter 767 of Florida Statutes Title XLV on dog owners liability states that the owner is liable for damages caused by his/her dog in a public, or private place, if the bitten person entered it lawfully (duty, invitation). Nevertheless, any negligence of the person who suffered proportionally reduces the extent of the owners liability. A lawsuit can be filed by the victim during the four years since the day of the injury. The most striking provisions of the chapter tell that if the owner displayed the typical sign on her/his premises that can be seen and readable by potential guests, the owner would not be liable for damages (The Florida Senate, n.d.). Of course, there are some exceptions, such as damage to children under six years and harm caused due to the owners negligence.
This regulatory law goes against most local laws that proclaim dog owners automatic liability for any injury or damage caused. Although the regulation seems to be strict, there are three defenses to a dog bite claim: comparative negligence, presence of a Bad Dog sign, and trespassing. Enterprises that use dogs for perimeter security in Florida will benefit from putting such signs if they want to avoid possible liability for damages caused by them.
References
Brody, D. (2020). The top 7 recent employment law cases you should know. Workforce. com. Web.
Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Barkacs, L., Herron, D., Williamson, C., & Dhooge, L. (2017). Dynamic business law: The essentials (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Medrano, K. (2020). The weirdest law in every state. Thrillist. Web.
The Florida Senate. (n.d). 2020 Florida Statutes. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.