In balancing the actions, the District Court ruled that the public interest did not favor an injunction prohibiting competitive employment when the United States faces the highest unemployment rates in more than seven decades. In its complaint, Blessinger claims that Wipfli terminated its employment relationship without cause and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, he argues that Wipfli`s attempt to enforce the agreement against him is contrary to Montana law, which “strongly disapproves of agreements not to compete,” particularly when there is “an employer to terminate the employment relationship while trying to enforce the agreement, not to compete.” Blessinger applied to the Tribunal for an injunction stating that the agreement is invalid and unenforceable, as well as an increase in attorneys` fees, fees and other relief that the Tribunal deems necessary. Blessinger was an accountant and then a director for Galusha, Hiigins, Galusha, PC, when the company merged with Wipfli in 2015. At the time of the merger, it signed a confidentiality and restrictive agreement, but claims that it did not receive any promotion, increase or bonus in exchange for signing the agreement. Wipfli announced the hiring of Blessinger on May 4, 2020. The dismissal letter stated, among other things, that Grissinger claims that she has received several job offers since her dismissal and dismissal, but that any potential employer has demanded that she be exempted from the non-competition clause with CBH as a condition of employment. According to Mr. Grissinger, her employer refuses to exempt her from one of the non-compete restrictions, which has caused her to lose valuable employment opportunities and she may lose other opportunities in the future. Nevertheless, experts say that non-competitors have their place, such as the protection of certain intellectual property rights.

But to be enforceable, they must balance the interests of the employer and the worker. Russomano resigned from Novo Nordisk in January 2020. Preparing to take its new positions, Russomano filed a lawsuit against Novo Nordisk after refusing to promise not to enforce the non-compete clause. Novo Nordisk took the case to Federal Court and filed a breach of contract, unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets, in addition to an injunction and injunction. Novo Nordisk argued that the confidentiality and non-compete agreement signed by Russomano upon reinstatement in 2016 still applies, given that he was employed continuously in the company until his resignation in January 2020. The District Court dismissed the application and found that Novo Nordisk was unlikely to succeed on the merits. On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Circuit Court for the First Circuit gave some instructions and a warning story to the ignorant employer.

In Russomano v. Novo Nordisk, the First Circuit, a District Court ruling confirmed that it prevented pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk Inc. from imposing a confidentiality and non-compete clause it had entered into with employee Thomas Russomano, who was briefly fired and rehired before leaving the company for a competing company. Novo Nordisk tried to enforce the agreement signed with Russomano before his short break, in order to prohibit him from working for a competitor and disclosing certain confidential information. Some States agree with this explanatory memorandum. For example, a number of New York state and government courts have ruled that hostilities to competition are not enforceable if an employee is fired for no reason. See z.B. SIFCO Indus. V.

Advanced Plating Technologies, 867 F. Supp. 155 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (refusal to impose competitive agreements against managers after plant closure). Similarly, federal courts that label Illinois law have reached the same conclusion. See Rao v. Rao, 718 F.2d 219 (7th Cir. 1983) (note that a restrictive agreement is not applicable when an employee is terminated in bad faith and without good reason). . . .