It can be said that an exemption is not necessary for inactivity agreements. The reason for this would be that the consent of a worker, a client or an employee of his employer does not “limit or prohibit, by nature, the worker from preventing the worker from being … employed by another employer” either in “a specific geographic area, or “[f]or indeterminate or defined.” However, as with any new legislation, there will inevitably be controversies over the intended scope of the law. By not .C explicitly excluding initiative agreements in the bill, as Massachusetts and Washington legislators have done, the D.C Council could leave the door open to litigation on this issue. Certainly, the additional clarity of a “carve-out” for initiative agreements would be welcomed by employers and could avoid a number of legal interpretation disputes. The District of Columbia does not have specific legislation dealing with non-compete clauses, but DC Code Section 28-4502 prohibits any contractual agreement that inappropriately restricts trade. Courts may impose competition restrictions where the restriction is appropriate and is related to the labour/employer relationship. It must be necessary to protect the interests of the employer`s company and this cannot be wider or longer than necessary, and you cannot have anything in the agreement contrary to public policy. Finally, there must be some reflection. The duration of the non-competition clause can vary from a few months to several years. Because of the restrictive nature of a non-compete agreement, many employers no longer use it. However, there are a few cases where they might apply to your business in Washington, D.C., so it`s good to get familiar with the basics.
As mentioned above, the law would impose significant penalties on employers who attempt to use non-compete prohibitions in violation of the law. The precise mechanism for implementing these sanctions is less clear. Unlike other laws that have enacted laws providing for similar fines against employers who attempt to impose non-compete bans on low-wage workers, the law creates direct liability and a private right of action for the workers concerned, in addition to possible fines imposed by the mayor of D.C. In addition, if certain categories of liability are capped, there are remarkably few liability restrictions for an employer attempting to impose a non-competition agreement that, under the bill, is not applicable. Suppose it is deemed appropriate to prevent the hairdresser from starting her own business within 30 miles of her former employer. Will this 30-mile radius rule still be in effect if the non-competition agreement is applied against a hot dog cart sale whose main clientele is going to lunch? Probably not, because a geographical limitation to a few blocks can be reasonable and still protect the employer. But the question then arises as to how many blocks are “only a few.” It is not uncommon to attempt to introduce a restrictive confederation as part of a compensation agreement. The usual practice is to offer the outgoing worker her monthly salary – or a certain percentage of it – for each month she has under the federal state. But if the outgoing person can be easily reinstated, he could quite ask for a bonus and not a discount on his previous wages.