One of the related issues is how the assessment of the buy-back option affects the employer`s ability to impose the restriction, which, as a form of right to omission, requires proof that the employer does not have an appropriate financial remedy. The law responds here and states that if the physician refuses to exercise it, the buy-back option cannot be used in such a way as to limit the application of appropriate remedies, such as the application of the non-competition clause by the employer. Employers who intend to enter into non-compete agreements with physicians or after July 1, 2020 should ensure that the agreements comply with the provisions of the law in order to be enforceable. Of course, such agreements should also be closely tailored and promote a legitimate commercial interest in order to satisfy Indiana`s common law requirements with respect to restrictive agreements in general. This is especially true given Indiana`s refusal to fairly reform extended agreements and limit the modification of the «Blue Pencil» doctrine (see here for a brief statement of the Blue Pencil Doctrine). In addition, in order to avoid infringement claims, employers of Physicians in the State of Indiana should take steps to satisfy the law`s obligation to notify former section 1 and (2) patients, which can be distressing in the absence of simplified procedures. Like the new law in Virginia, but unlike Washington`s new law, the law only applies prospectively, including to competition bans for doctors that were initially concluded on or after July 1, 2020. The law does not affect medical competition bans that were already in place before July 1, 2020. Ultimately, many people find it helpful to benefit from the advice of an experienced labour lawyer when they encounter issues related to non-compete rules.
A competent lawyer can check your special agreement and help explain the different applicability requirements. Employment lawyers at Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, LLP, are here to help develop agreements between a company and its employees to reduce the likelihood that agreements will be challenged in court. Contact us today for all your employment law needs. Indiana courts have long ruled that competition bans in employment contracts are generally disapproved by law and therefore must be carefully considered before being enforced. Indeed, restrictions related to the employment relationship – such as prohibitions on competition – are examined with particular attention, because they often result from unequal bargaining power and because a worker is unlikely to pay attention to the difficulties he may encounter later after job loss. In general, Indiana courts are not competitive because they can be considered a trade restriction. However, non-competition rules that meet a double test can and often are applicable. In order to protect their proprietary information and prevent good employees from being stolen, Indiana employers are increasingly requiring their employees to sign competition bans. The non-compete clause gives employers a degree of certainty that an employee who has developed considerable skills and acquired valuable knowledge during the course of his or her employment will not leave and will compete directly with the company. However, many prohibitions on competition are harsh and exaggerated and significantly stifle a person`s ability to move freely through his profession and pursue career opportunities. . .