Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In contract law, a non-compete clause (often NCC), restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party (usually an employee) agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer).
Non-solicitation agreement provisions—alongside the non-compete clause (NCC) and the non-disclosure agreement (NDA)—constitute one of three restrictive covenants frequently found within a business contract. They may be entered into with both employees and independent contractors—in addition to multiple entities—as part of a larger ...
A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action.Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. [1]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Restrictive covenants have a complex and sordid history. From the 1920s to the 1960s, racially restrictive covenants became a common tool to prevent racial, ethnic and religious minorities from ...
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...
Under English law, restraining clauses in employment contracts are enforceable if: [citation needed] There is a legitimate interest which needs to be protected. Examples of such interests include business connections and business secrets. The restraint is reasonable, i.e. sufficiently protects the interest and goes no further.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have ...