On May 1, 2017, TQL filed its complaint and sought a publication ban, which was granted by the State Court. TQL is now seeking an injunction to prevent defendants from using TQL`s so-called trade secrets to obtain customers, suppliers, sources of recommendation and to prevent defendants from confronting TQL in violation of the non-compete agreement. Last week, the South Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC that the language was broad enough in a confidentiality agreement to become in fact an invalid non-compete agreement. The case serves as a warning to employers to verify their confidentiality and confidentiality agreements to ensure they are applicable. In conclusion, the defendants generally do not question the relevance of the reef non-competition agreement. The courts confirmed that similar TQL non-competition agreements with one-year restrictive periods were applicable, while changing the scope of the agreements for the heavy-duty brokerage industry. See z.B., Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. OTC Logistics LLC, No. 1:19-cv-151, 2019 WL 1300223, at `3-4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2019).
Therefore, the Riffe agreement would likely be considered appropriate with the same amendment, which would limit the restrictions of the agreement on the participation of reefs in the heavy-duty broker industry. It`s true. We had to recruit two employees because TQL was coming legally after us. The trouble is not worth it – he should never have signed the agreement. Riffe testified in his impeachment that in the spring of 2018, he began discussing with Wright the possibility of leaving TQL for Del Mar. (Riffe Depo. with 43). Wright also considered setting up his own brokerage company at about the same time. (Wight Depo. at 85).
Wright was certainly aware of Riffe`s non-compete agreement. (Id.) He forwarded a copy of Riffes Non-Compete Agreement to an acquaintance of a lawyer for verification, who stated that riffe was “pretty well screwed” because the agreement had “almost all options on [c],” including the possibility that Riffe would work “in-house” for Wright as long as he “worked in the role of transportation management or organization.” (Wright Depo. at 160-162). The applicants argue that cain is seriously prejudiced if the court has agreed to TQL`s request for omission because the agreement causes inappropriate severity. (doc. 5 for 20-22). However, Cain entered into the otc agreement to work at TQL. Damage caused directly to Cain by a violation of non-competition under the agreement does not take into account the balance of damages by the Court of Justice. See Avery Dennison Corp. Kitsonas, 118 F.
Supp. 2d 848, 855 (“Any damage caused to [defendant] would be a direct consequence of his own actions” in the event of a breach of restrictive agreements in an employment contract). When assessing the adequacy of a non-competition agreement, the courts take into account the following nine factors: (1) if the contract imposes restrictions on time and space; 2) if the worker has had contact with clients; 3) if the worker has confidential information or trade secrets; (4) if the Confederation prohibits only unfair competition (5), if the Confederation stifles the intrinsic skills and experiences of the worker (6), if the employer benefit is disproportionate to the worker`s disadvantage (7), if the Confederation destroys the worker`s only means of support (8), if the worker`s talent was developed during employment (9) and if the prohibited employment is only an accessory for employment (9).