Greenville Business Magazine has recognized Andy Arnold as one of the area’s Legal Elite in the practice of Labor and Employment Law.
So, the fact is that non-competes are not just a matter between employer and employee, but impact customer, hiring businesses, and consumers.
The law in South Carolina regarding non-compete agreements is sparse. So, trial courts are left to hash out disputes with modest guidance. Unfortunately, more times than not legal memorandums are not read prior to the hearing.
I was admitted to the practice of law in South Carolina on November 18, 1992. Just as watching my children…
The South Carolina Bar kicked off its Proud to be a South Carolina Lawyer” campaign. I was one of 13 featured.
A Boston law firm,Beck Reed Riden, has developed a chart that outlines the law of non-competes in all 50 states. It is pretty good tool and an easy way to get some basic information about non-compete law.
One of the concerns for people who have signed a non-compete is that a court will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or an injunction. Rule 65 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure governs TROs and injunctions.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a new non-compete case, which overturned a lower court decision enforcing a non-compete after modifying (i.e., “blue penciling”) its overly broad provisions.
Under South Carolina law and the law of most states, non-competes which are a general restraint of trade are void, while that founded upon valid consideration and reasonable in scope are valid.
Several posts on this blog have focused on the inevitable disclosure doctrine, which seeks to further erode an employee’s power to quit and work elsewhere. Nucor v. Bell is an unreported decision applying SC law (2008) in which U.S. District Court Judge David Norton f used the inevitable disclosure doctrine to grant injunctive relief against the former employee.