However, there is a blank language that says the employee`s interests and hardness should not be completely ignored. The Tribunal stated that the prohibition of non-competition against history was to consider that commercial restriction contracts were generally illegal and that the status was an exception or exception to such a blanket prohibition which “finds a delicate balance between legitimate business interests and a person`s inalienable right to work”. 57 The inalienable right to work is protected by the Florida Constitution58.58 The employer bears the burden of proving that the non-competition agreement is reasonably necessary to protect those commercial interests. The onus is then on the worker to prove that the employer`s business interests do not require protection or that the restrictions are too extensive. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court recently drew attention to the adequacy requirements of the non-compete clause is significant, as it comes after other courts have criticized Florida`s non-compete clause. For example, in 2015, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that Florida`s non-compete clause was not applicable because it was directed against New York`s public order.6 As discussed later, the New York Court ruled that the exception was reserved for public order from “really repugnant” laws. 7 As has been said, federal and other state courts outside Florida have interpreted the law narrowly to justify non-compliance with non-competition prohibitions, or as the New York Court of Appeals directly refused to comply with the statute on public policy grounds. Federal courts review employee damages – In addition, federal courts that enforce the non-compete clause law in Florida have found a way to take into account the employee`s damages. In Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solution, Inc. v. MacLachlan, 625 Fed.
App`x 403 (11. Cir. 2015), the court quashed a district court`s finding that Florida`s status prohibits non-competition from considering the severity of a defendant employee when an injunction was sought.38 In Transunion, the 11th Circuit faced an alleged dispute between Florida`s status and the Fed. R. Civ. notes, among other things, that “the threat of injury to the movement outweighs the damage that the proposed arrangement may cause to the opposing party.” 39 The 11th Circuit held that Florida`s non-compete status was not contrary to Rule 65, since the status could only be considered in a limited manner, which can be considered for the determination of “enforceable force” and not in particular for the nature of the remedy.40 In other words, according to the 11th circuit , a non-competition agreement may still be enforceable, but not by way of reference. As a result, the 11th Circuit quashed the injunction and sent the matter back to court to compensate for the harshness of Rule 65.41. , courts that criticize the law seem determined to believe that certain provisions unfairly stack the bridge against the worker and in favour of the employer.