You might feel safe in your legal position. However, no one can predict how a court might decide, so you need to think about what damages your former employer could recover in court. However, an NQF that is too broad may prevent an employee from working elsewhere. Originally, English customary law considered that such a restriction was not applicable according to the doctrine of public policy.  Current case law allows for exceptions, but generally applies ACSs only to the extent necessary to protect the employer. Most legal systems in which such contracts have been reviewed by the courts have considered NQFs to be legally binding as long as the clause provides for reasonable restrictions with respect to the geographical area and the period during which an employee of a company is not allowed to compete.  The implementation of these agreements depends on the law of the State concerned. As a general rule, with the exception of agreements for the assignment of inventions, they are subject to the same analysis as other CNCs. . A landmark court decision that deals with the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 decision application group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. In Hunter, a Maryland company demanded: that its Maryland employee agreed to a one-year ban on competition.
The treaty states that it is governed by Maryland law and must be interpreted under it. A Maryland employee then went to see a competitor in California. When the new California employer filed a lawsuit in California state court to invalidate the requirement not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its companies so that they can hire the personnel of their choice. The worker has the right to claim the agreed compensation from the employer after fulfilling the obligations of remuneration of the competition, and the People`s Court supports this claim. . . .