I. NO, EN VOGUE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE MS. RAMIREZ’S NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINSINESS INTEREST EXTIST.
A restrictive covenant is designed to protect both the employer and the employee. The employer’s business interest is protected from unfair competition where the employee has the right to earn a living while still competing in a free society. A restrictive covenant is justified; if the person seeking enforcement of contracts can enforce the contract, if the contract is signed by the person whom enforcement is sought, “is reasonable in time, area, and in the line of business.” They must also plead and prove that one or more legitimate business interest exist which justify the restrictive covenant. A “legitimate business
…show more content…
Next subheading here, one sentence conclusion. Single space.
C
R
E Money
Experience
Manual In Milner, defendant had no experience or prior training in the telephone. Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1216 (S.D. Fla. 2005). After defendant was employed by plaintiff, he received specialized training on marketed products within the telephone industry. Id. at 1216. Plaintiff paid for defendant to attend multiple two-week training school in Phoenix. Id. at 1217. Plaintiff also paid for defendant to attend a four-day national training in Phoenix. Id. at 1217. Defendant also received a ten-day training in Atlanta and another five training in New Jersey in which the plaintiff also paid for. During defendant’s employment he became a certified technician. Id. at 1217. Plaintiff also sent defendant to the corporate office for computer training for four days in Atlanta. Id. at 1217. The total cost for defendants training during his two years of employment was $18,669.84 which includes tuition, expenses, salary, and benefits. Id. at 1217. Because of his training defendant was able