No-debauchery agreements are intended to prevent former employees from taking the client or employees of an employer as the former employee`s new employer. There are two types of no-pocher agreements. Recruitment bans prohibit former employees from coming into contact with the employer`s clients. No-pocher agreements prohibit former employees from inviting former co-workers to leave the employer and join a new employer. In the absence of a no-poofing agreement, a worker is usually free to leave an employer and recruit the former employer`s clients and hire the employer`s employees. For example, in the case of Insulation Corporation of America v. Brobston, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled against the employer in a non-compete clause. In this case, Brobston was a salesman who had access to confidential business information on insulation Corporation of America. The company fired him for poor performance, including his refusal to make business trips and not act in the best interests of the company.

However, there are two important exceptions to this rule in Pennsylvania. One of them is a non-competition clause in the context of the sale of a company. The other is when it comes to an employment contract. In both contexts, restrictions may apply to a former worker if they are proportionate to geographical scope and duration. The Pennsylvania Superior Court also objected to the enforcement of non-competition in All-Pak, Inc. v. Johnston is the case where competition bans should not be applied in situations where employees have been laid off due to a reduction in size and therefore need additional access to economic opportunities. In the past, Pennsylvania courts have left some leeway when the non-compete clause is signed at or shortly after hiring.

This new Decision of the Supreme Court clarifies and limits this simultaneous obligation to sign. In essence, the Court requires employers and workers to reach an agreement on or acceptance of non-competition conditions at the beginning of employment or before the start of employment, even if these are only done orally or by means of documents, while the agreement will be signed later. This means that the non-competition clause will probably be duly taken into account if employers and workers, although signed after the first day of employment, have accepted, at least orally (or perhaps by their behaviour), the conditions of non-competition (or any other minor point concerning them) up to the first day of employment. But what happens if the non-competition clause was concluded after the start of the employment relationship? That`s the issue the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed last year in a case called Socko v. Mid-Atlantic. The seller filed a complaint against his former employer. He argued that the non-competition clause was not applicable because the employer had not granted him any compensation or benefit (“legal consideration”). If you want to negotiate a non-competition clause, it is best to work with an employment lawyer. Trying to negotiate on your own can be a challenge, as you may worry about losing your job offer and employers may not be receptive to changing the employment contract without a lawyer involved. In general, you should focus negotiations on a few areas: the Pennsylvania Superior Court accepted the seller. The applicable law was the Pennsylvania version of the uniform Written Obligations Act.

.