“ReliaStar was trying to keep up with KMG . . . On December 14, 2004, ReliaStar continued to work. . As the Landgericht pointed out, these employees (with the sole exception of Gibb) were not subject to non-competitive agreements. A broad layout, in which . . . salespeople who previously worked for ReliaStar would have lost all their jobs, which would have significantly harmed employees and SMEs. Id. at 6. Minnesota courts will apply non-competition and non-competition agreements that will be interpreted with care, but there are limits to both types of alliances.
Signing a restrictive federation can have serious consequences for both the employer and the worker, so it is important to understand your rights under Minnesota labour law. The Court found that the anti-fraud statutes applied to the agreement. Since no consideration was made in writing for an agreement and could not be executed until 24 months after an unspecified date, the Tribunal decided that it was not applicable. In a notified decision, no Minnesota appeals court directly addressed the enforceability of the non-request of employees. However, it is generally accepted that post-employment restrictions on hiring employees in Minnesota are legal and should be analyzed within the same legal framework as any other restrictive confederation. Therefore, to be enforceable, the employer would have to show that it has a legitimate interest to protect, that the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect that interest, and that the worker has received, among other things, an appropriate consideration. See z.B. Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage, 426 N.W.2d 445, 449-450 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1988) in another dispute over the employee appeal, this time with the freight broker industry, a court in Hennepin County, Minnesota, issued a restraining order prohibiting “all” employees who previously worked in a company (XPO) and who were still subject to a two-year non-invitation agreement with their former company (C.H. Robinson) from recruiting or initiating contacts regarding the employment of a C.H. Robinson employee during the period of non-invitation agreement (C.H. Robinson). C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Kratt, 27-CV-1216003, 2013 WL 6222078 (Hen. Co.
Dist. Ct., 4th Court. by Minn., January 17, 2013.) Again, the court did not prevent anyone who had already been invited to continue his activity. The court of C.H. Robinson emphasized the protected interest in gambling, and noted: “Plaintiff . . . [a]res and are properly read in such a way as to prevent former employees from using their relationships with current employees to whom they have been exposed because of their work with the complainant to abuse the value that the applicant`s employees developed with the applicant`s clients. Id. at 24. Minnesota courts are more likely to hold non-solicitation agreements than non-competition clauses, but they also receive additional scrutiny than restrictive agreements.
For example, unlike non-competition agreements, unsolicited agreements generally do not require geographic boundaries; however, they must have reasonable time frames. Even Minnesota courts generally maintain initiative agreements once employees progress within the company and assume more responsibility. The duration of a non-compete agreement must be proportionate to be applicable under Minnesota law. The duration of the non-competition agreement is considered appropriate if it corresponds to the length of time it takes the employer to recruit and train the replacement of the worker and to remove the link between the employer and the worker in the interests of the company`s customers. In other words, the employer must have a reasonable period of time for the client to rent, form and introduce the employee`s replacement before the former employee can call the customers again.