Brooklyn Paper Sues Reporter to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement
Earlier today, it was reported that a local downtown Brooklyn paper sued one of its former reporters, and secured a temporary restraining order (which in legalese, is also known as an injunction) barring him from working for a competing periodical, based upon a six-month non-compete agreement that he had previously signed.
And in reporting on this story, it appears that the reporter settled out with the plaintiff, paying the paper over $2,000 in order to get out of the non-compete.
Granted, I am not privy to much of the pertinent facts of this case, but I am puzzled by one thing: what conceivable "trade secret" did this reporter possess such that his non-compete agreement should be enforced?
And here's why that's important: As noted in "When a Non-Compete Agreement is Enforceable Under New York Law," an employer's interests will only be protected when it's necessary to needed to prevent a former employee from wrongfully breaching his fiduciary duty and wrongfully reveal the employer's confidential and/or proprietary information that it expended time, money and effort to develop."
But if you're looking as to why the defendant settled with plaintiff, the reason should be fairly obvious: for a nominal plaintiff costing a mere $2,000 some-odd dollarts, the defendant was free to work wherever and whenever he wants.
And in reporting on this story, it appears that the reporter settled out with the plaintiff, paying the paper over $2,000 in order to get out of the non-compete.
Granted, I am not privy to much of the pertinent facts of this case, but I am puzzled by one thing: what conceivable "trade secret" did this reporter possess such that his non-compete agreement should be enforced?
And here's why that's important: As noted in "When a Non-Compete Agreement is Enforceable Under New York Law," an employer's interests will only be protected when it's necessary to needed to prevent a former employee from wrongfully breaching his fiduciary duty and wrongfully reveal the employer's confidential and/or proprietary information that it expended time, money and effort to develop."
But if you're looking as to why the defendant settled with plaintiff, the reason should be fairly obvious: for a nominal plaintiff costing a mere $2,000 some-odd dollarts, the defendant was free to work wherever and whenever he wants.
Category: General
Labels: