Delaware courts have ruled that restrictive agreements apply where conditions are appropriate and necessary to protect certain business interests of the employer, such as customer relations or trade secrets. Factors taken into account in determining adequacy include the harshness that an agreement imposes on the former worker, its impact on the community, and the time, territorial and activity constraints of the former worker. Ultimately, the validity of a choice of law in a restrictive contractual agreement depends on a number of factors, including the facts at issue and the public policies of states likely to have a substantial interest in the purpose. This analysis should be done with the help of a consultant. And in some cases, it may be wise for the company to recommend to its potential employees to keep a board when negotiating their agreements. The non-competition prohibition provided that the worker could not, directly or indirectly, for one year after his departure, „manage, operate, control, participate or provide services (including as a consultant or consultant) to a person who works in a product or service (or who provides financial assistance in any way, or who somehow performs his or her activity). proposed by the company. Practitioners, particularly those who advise their counterparts on mergers and acquisitions, often check employment contracts that contain Delaware law. These practitioners are quite right to tell their business colleagues and clients that Delaware`s non-compete law is generally employer-friendly. However, the scrupulous practitioner will also add that applicability may ultimately depend on where the employee works. the development of employment contracts, confidentiality agreements, competition agreements and non-invitations; The mere fact that an agreement is enforceable in one state, but not in another, is not necessarily a mechanism in relation to the fundamental and political question. However, the third arrondissement recently upheld the regional court`s decision. In doing so, the Third Circuit explicitly rejected the employer`s request to uphold the matter in the Delaware Supreme Court and stated that „we do not find the law uncertain on this point.“ Cabela`s LLC v.
Highby, 2020 WL 1867922, at 1 n.8 (3d Cir. April 14, 2020).  In applying the same criteria, Delaware Chancery Court reached the opposite conclusion in NuVasive. Just as Cabelo`s facts were primarily related to Nebraska, NuVasive`s facts referred equally to California. In addition, it is generally considered that California law generally prohibits restrictive contractual agreements. Section 16600 of the California Business and Professional Code strictly prohibits any restriction of competition in the context of employment.