The Sheshunoff court resolved the problem in this way: a non-compete clause is an agreement incident to an otherwise enforceable agreement if the employer agrees to provide the worker with confidential information and the employer subsequently provides the confidential information. The non-competition clause does not apply at the time the employee signs the competition bans, but when the employee receives the confidential information. The Texas Supreme Court has given us the possibility that this “secondary requirement” may be met: an employer may engage in non-competition with an employee. One of the fundamental conditions for the applicability of a non-compete clause in Texas is that the agreement must be “on the date of the agreement for an enforceable agreement or part of another binding agreement.” tex. bus. Com. If the only “other agreement” with the worker is the contractual employment relationship, the non-competition contract is unenforceable. Despite a reference in Bewillik`s labour relations status, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an unsuspecting employment relationship would constitute an “otherwise enforceable agreement.” Light v. Centel Cellular Co., 883 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1994).
Let me translate it. The court says, let`s not sweat the details about the confidential information if we apply the “secondary application” of the status. We can deal with the details if we apply the second requirement of the status, the adequacy. A competition or non-invitation agreement limits a worker`s activities after termination of employment and is used to prevent a worker from working in the same occupation or sector as his or her employer. An agreement to provide professional training for staff may also meet this requirement. This is why my form, a non-compete plain-language, contains both an agreement for the provision of confidential information and a specific training agreement. The employer`s reasoning focuses on a short but important sentence in Sheshunoff`s view. The Sheshunoff court referred to the “incidental element of an otherwise enforceable agreement” and stated that, under Texas law, the applicability of a non-compete clause does not depend on whether you are gone, dismissed or terminated. In rare cases, the language of the non-competition clause may influence the question of whether the non-competition clause is applicable on the basis of the end of your employment. In light, the Bewillik employee entered into an agreement not to compete with her employer. You can count on TEX.
bus. – COM. CODE 15.50 (a) the employer attempted to impose the Confederation against light after leaving the company. Id. The Texas Supreme Court stated that “although Light and [the employer] had an otherwise enforceable agreement between them, the Confederacy was not part of or part of this otherwise enforceable agreement.” Easy, 883 S.W.2d to 643. The court found that The Light Agreement contained three non-illusory promises, but that Light`s promise not to compete with his employer at the time of termination was not enforceable because it was not “next” to the non-illusory promises, i.e. that the Confederation not to compete was “not intended to enforce one of Light`s promises of return to the otherwise replaceable agreement.” Id. The agreement did not meet the requirements of the statute, so the Confederation could not compete. Id. at 647-48. Although the Texas Supreme Court did not highlight the facts, it indicated in a footnote that if the worker promises not to compete and the employer undertakes an illusory commitment to provide confidential information as soon as the employer actually provides the confidential information, the contract becomes enforceable and not just a promise not to compete.