Non Compete Agreement Nevada Law


The Nevada Supreme Court also eliminated the “blue pencil” doctrine, which historically allowed courts to process the content of a non-compete agreement, thereby transforming an unenforceable provision into an enforceable provision. The Supreme Court found that preliminary proceedings are busy interpreting contracts and not writing. The Shores decision does not change the Nevada Competition Prohibitions Act, but indicates a step toward enforcement and away from opposition to Golden Road. For both the authors and the parties to the trial, Shores highlights the challenges an employer faces in imposing a non-competition agreement, while emphasizing the need to sufficiently limit the geographic and temporal scope of the non-competition regime. An employer wishing to enforce its non-competition agreement must be prepared to prove to a court that its restrictive agreements are duly limited to a geographical restriction to areas in which the employer can demonstrate justified business interests. If you would like us to verify your non-competition agreement, pass on your information by following the following link: Dissens criticized the distinction between the majority of the old blue pencils of Ellis and Hansen and found that such a complete nullity of the previous rule would give unreasonable results. In addition, dissent found that blue pencils, which had been accepted by most jurisdictions, constituted an appropriate right of appeal among the facts, when the former employee had stolen trade secrets and committed theft. Nevertheless, the majority opposed such a reform with blue pencils and drew the attention of employers to the fact that too broad conditions could invalidate their non-competition agreement. In addition to being closely suited to the protection of legitimate business interests, a non-competition agreement should not limit activities after the departure of a worker for too long or restrict competition in an excessive or inappropriate geographical area. To be implemented by reference, the non-competition agreement must be appropriate in terms of geographic scope, scope and duration.vii The Nevada Supreme Court held that the non-competition prohibitions were unreasonable when the agreement prevents the worker from competing for an unreasonable period and/or restricts competition in an unreasonable area.