Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A former employee may proceed with whistle-blowing and claims of wrongful discharge against an employer who fired her for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement. On April 16, 2003, the New Jersey Appellate Division (the Court) so ruled in Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc. (ACCI), 359 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2003). In so holding, the Court concluded that terminating Karol Maw for failing to sign an agreement that prohibited her from working for any client or competitor of ACCI during and for 2 years following her separation from employment may well have violated New Jersey's strong public policy against unduly burdening employees by restricting their right to engage in their chosen field of employment.
The Facts
Maw began working for ACCI as a graphics designer in early November 1997. Her job was to design written materials to be used by ACCI in its marketing and educational programs for clients in the health care and pharmaceutical industries. In that capacity, she created design concepts for written and graphic materials; prepared the design and layout of technical charts, graphs, and reports; and coordinated with ACCI's vendors. ACCI did not require her to have any knowledge of, or experience in, the pharmaceutical or health care industries. Indeed, Maw had no training or education in any medical or pharmaceutical science, and alleged she understood little about the substantive content of the materials she produced.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?