Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by brightball on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:43AM
(#12796357)
Interesting. I'd always heard it was due to right to work, but after researching it a little bit more it's just how non-competes are handled in my state (South Carolina).
http://www.scnoncompetelawyer.com/
"A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is:
(1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer;
(2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place;
(3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood;
(4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and
(5) supported by a valuable consideration.
* * * *
If a covenant not to compete is defective in one of the above referenced areas, it is totally defective and cannot be saved."