Although common and non-competitive rules in employment contracts and, to a lesser extent, in sales contracts for businesses, these have long been the objective of government regulation. The reason for this regulation is that trade restrictions can drive workers away from the labour market and remove ownership from the trade as part of the acquisition. In addition to the various states that act, there have been several attempts to pass a federal law that, in one way or another, would limit non-competition bans only to higher-wage workers. While these attempts failed, the Federal Trade Commission held a public workshop earlier this year on whether to use its regulatory authority to implement national restrictions on the use of non-competition agreements. The FTC`s decision is expected before the end of the year. Many states try to limit the applicability of non-competition agreements because they are considered excessively severe competition restrictions. These agreements can make it almost impossible for workers to find more work after being left behind. Competition bans often prevent workers from working in the same sector as their former businesses. If they have spent their entire careers developing their know-how and skills in this sector, these workers will effectively prevent them from finding work comparable to similar wages. Starting in 2017, Illinois has banned non-compete bans on employees earning less than $13 an hour.   The applicability of these agreements depends on the law of each state.
However, as a general rule, with the exception of invention transfer agreements, they are subject to the same analysis as other CNCs. However, the Texas courts will not apply an anti-competition contract if the court finds that such a pact is “contrary to public policy and is therefore materially unacceptable.”  Under new Washington rules, independents of competition can only be implemented against employees earning more than $100,000 a year and independent contractors earning more than $250,000 a year. Washington employers must also compensate workers who have been made redundant but still subject to non-competitive agreements, and these agreements must not last more than 18 months. Maryland has also created an income floor below which non-compete bans do not apply – employers are prohibited from requiring employees earning less than $15.00 per hour or $31,200 per year to sign non-compete bans. The new Massachusetts law stipulates, among other things, that non-competitive employment agreements must now be supported by independent thinking about maintaining employment. Finally, the California Supreme Court will decide whether the quasi-glacial ban on the state`s competition restrictions also applies to agreements between two companies that leave a joint venture. Canadian courts will apply competition and non-appeal agreements, but the agreement must be limited, in time, scope and geographic scope, to what is reasonably necessary to protect the company`s property rights, such as confidential business information or customer relations and the scope of the agreement must be clearly defined. Shafron v.
KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. 2009 CSC 6 of the Supreme Court of Canada found that a non-competition agreement was inconclusive because the term “Metropolitan City of Vancouver” was not definitively defined.  See the list below to determine whether non-compete prohibitions are applicable to any, some or all types of employment relationships controlled by your state`s laws. If certain occupations are listed, only these occupations are exempt from the prohibition of non-competition in that state and non-competitive occupations are likely to apply to all other occupations not mentioned.