In the face of these situations, critics, including Minnesota legislators, activists and policy makers, continue their efforts to ban non-compete bans in the state. First, the Minnesota courts will check the facts of each case to determine whether a non-compete clause is valid and applicable. First, a court decides whether the employer has awarded the worker an appropriate consideration for the non-competition clause. In return, this means that the employee received something in exchange for signing the non-competition clause. When the non-compete agreement is concluded at the beginning of the employment relationship, the promise of employment is considered appropriate for the agreement to be valid. If the non-competition agreement is entered into after the start of the employment relationship, it is only valid if the employer provided additional consideration that would be additional money or other benefit to which the worker was not otherwise entitled. The bill would prohibit employers from prohibiting competition with all workers and even competing. All of these agreements, from the possible date of the law, would not be valid. Existing agreements would not be affected. However, despite this general prohibition, the bill appears to allow a non-competition clause of up to one year if the employer compensates the employee at the worker`s final wage rate – a concept commonly referred to as “gardening holidays”. This interlude between the total ban and the exception for gardening holidays is not clear.
In deciding on the application of a non-competition agreement or clause, the court compensates the employer`s interest in protecting against unfair competition from the worker`s right to live. If the employer`s interest prevails over the workers, the non-competition agreement is valid and applicable. Minnesota`s legislature is currently considering HF 3673, which purports to prohibit all non-compete obligations with all employees, and may also prohibit all uns requested and undisclosed agreements by customers. The language of the law, which currently has 30 co-sponsors, is confusing and contradictory internally, so its progress through the legislative process warrants precise observation.