Fifty Ways To Leave Your Employer: Relative Enforcement of Covenants Not To Compete, Trends, and Implications for Employee Mobility Policy

Norman D. Bishara
{"title":"Fifty Ways To Leave Your Employer: Relative Enforcement of Covenants Not To Compete, Trends, and Implications for Employee Mobility Policy","authors":"Norman D. Bishara","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2014277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Covenants not to compete (“noncompetes”) remain a controversial tool for employers to restrict employee post-employment mobility, particularly in an increasingly cross-jurisdictional business world. Amid the growing attention focused on the impact of noncompetes in legal and business academic literature, scholars have begun to use interpretations of the strength of enforcement of these post-employment restrictions to assess barriers to employee mobility and knowledge diffusion.Unlike previous research, this article systematically, and with an in-depth examination of both case law and legislation, gauges the relative strength of noncompete enforcement across the United States based on multiple factors at two periods. Accordingly, the article presents trends in noncompete enforcement policy and evaluates these results in light of the legal literature arguing that an interjurisdictional market for law exists. The article concludes with an evaluation of the implications and future use of these findings for policymakers, businesses, and employees, as well as recommendations for additional research.","PeriodicalId":219760,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2014277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Covenants not to compete (“noncompetes”) remain a controversial tool for employers to restrict employee post-employment mobility, particularly in an increasingly cross-jurisdictional business world. Amid the growing attention focused on the impact of noncompetes in legal and business academic literature, scholars have begun to use interpretations of the strength of enforcement of these post-employment restrictions to assess barriers to employee mobility and knowledge diffusion.Unlike previous research, this article systematically, and with an in-depth examination of both case law and legislation, gauges the relative strength of noncompete enforcement across the United States based on multiple factors at two periods. Accordingly, the article presents trends in noncompete enforcement policy and evaluates these results in light of the legal literature arguing that an interjurisdictional market for law exists. The article concludes with an evaluation of the implications and future use of these findings for policymakers, businesses, and employees, as well as recommendations for additional research.
《离开雇主的50种方式:不竞争契约的相对执行、趋势和对员工流动政策的影响
不竞争契约(“非竞争契约”)仍然是雇主限制员工离职后流动性的一个有争议的工具,特别是在日益跨司法管辖区的商业世界中。随着法律和商业学术文献对竞业禁止影响的关注越来越多,学者们开始利用对这些离职后限制的执行力度的解释来评估员工流动和知识传播的障碍。与以往的研究不同,本文系统地、深入地考察了判例法和立法,基于两个时期的多种因素,衡量了美国竞业禁止执法的相对强度。因此,本文提出了竞业禁止执行政策的趋势,并根据认为存在跨司法管辖区法律市场的法律文献对这些结果进行了评估。文章最后评估了这些发现对政策制定者、企业和员工的影响和未来用途,并提出了进一步研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信