Non-Compete Clause: not always what is seems
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court once again showed its disfavor of Non-Compete clauses in the workplace. The Non-Compete line of cases is lengthy in Pennsylvania and the courts have consistently held the employer to a very strict burden.
This case demonstrates that the language of the Uniform Written Obligations Act does not supersede the requirements of a Non-Compete Clause. bigo live apk Simply placing the “magic language” of being legally bound into an Non-Compete agreement will not suffice as consideration.
“In this appeal by allowance, we consider an issue of first impression: whether the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant not to compete, entered into after the commencement of employment, may be challenged by an employee for a lack of consideration, where the agreement, by its express terms, states that the parties “intend to be legally bound,” which language implicates the insulating effect of the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”). In light of our Commonwealth’s long history of disfavoring restrictive covenants, and the mandate that covenants not to compete entered into after the commencement of employment must be accompanied by new and valuable consideration — a benefit or change in employment status — we conclude an employee is not precluded from challenging such an agreement executed pursuant to the UWOA. Thus, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.”