Kentucky Non-Compete Agreement Law

1. the length of employment, both before and after the agreement was signed; Kentucky law states that non-compete guarantees are reasonable in scope. The adequacy condition applies to three aspects of the restriction: non-competition prohibitions must be proportionate. They cannot last too long, cover too much geographic area or prohibit former employees from operating too many types of businesses. In short, the Applicability of Competition Bans Act is evolving in Kentucky. If your company has not audited its non-compete agreements with legal advisors or if you are concerned about the applicability of your company`s competition bans, Commonwealth Counsel Group lawyers will be happy to speak to you. Kentucky courts have always rigorously interpreted competition agreements between workers and employers against employers and workers. This means that all ambiguities or other issues are resolved in an inability to compete agreement for the benefit of the employee. That`s why it`s always been important for Kentucky employers to pay attention to developing non-competitive agreements. This is still the case today, following a 2014 Kentucky Supreme Court case that significantly changed the requirements of non-compete agreements reached by Kentucky employees. In Charles T. Creech, Inc.

v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345, (Ky. 2014), the Tribunal found that „continued employment“ is no longer sufficiently taken into account for workers who are required to sign non-compete agreements. The case marks a clear abandonment of Kentucky`s earlier jurisprudence. After many employees and trade secrets have been lost with them to competitors, more and more employers are asking or demanding agreements from their employees under Kentucky`s competition prohibitions legislation. Through a non-compete clause or non-compete agreements in Kentucky, workers promise not to work for a direct competitor for a period of time after the employer leaves. The question of whether it is worthwhile for employers to ask employees to sign non-compete agreements and how to create such agreements for judges under Kentucky non-relevant laws are the themes of this article. The Tribunal conducted a lengthy analysis of the two cases on which creech, Higdon Food Service, Inc. v. Walker, 641 S.W.2d 750 (Ky. 1982) and Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v.

Ingram Associates, Inc., 622 S.W.2d 681 (Ky. App. The Tribunal distinguished these two cases by stating that the „common thread“ between Higdon and Central was that after the non-competition clause was signed, „the working relationship between the parties changed.“ Creech, 433 S.W.3d to 354. However, in this case, the Tribunal found that Brown`s employment relationship with Creech stagnated after the contract was signed and for the remaining two years with the company. Brown remained an at-Will employee, and he received no bonuses, no promotion, no salary increase or special training.