Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employee Won't Sign a Non-Compete: Grounds for Dismissal?
A former employee may proceed with whistle-blowing and claims of wrongful discharge against an employer who fired her for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement. On April 16, 2003, the New Jersey Appellate Division (the Court) so ruled in Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc. (ACCI), 359 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2003). In so holding, the Court concluded that terminating Karol Maw for failing to sign an agreement that prohibited her from working for any client or competitor of ACCI during and for 2 years following her separation from employment may well have violated New Jersey's strong public policy against unduly burdening employees by restricting their right to engage in their chosen field of employment.
The Facts
Maw began working for ACCI as a graphics designer in early November 1997. Her job was to design written materials to be used by ACCI in its marketing and educational programs for clients in the health care and pharmaceutical industries. In that capacity, she created design concepts for written and graphic materials; prepared the design and layout of technical charts, graphs, and reports; and coordinated with ACCI's vendors. ACCI did not require her to have any knowledge of, or experience in, the pharmaceutical or health care industries. Indeed, Maw had no training or education in any medical or pharmaceutical science, and alleged she understood little about the substantive content of the materials she produced.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.