Reference no: EM131683481

In Idaho, a young doctor agreed to a 10-year, 50-mile radius in her employment contract. Upon leaving the employer's chiropractor office after five years, she set up a new office, but only went 49.5 miles away, thinking that would satisfy the 50-mile radius requirement.

The employer did not agree and filed for an injunction (which is a court order to prevent the doctor's actions) to stop the doctor from opening her office. The courts agreed with the employer. The employer was able to enforce the injunction and shut down the young doctor's new office. The ensuing financial issues grew for the young doctor because she now had signed contracts for the building, equipment, and utilities, but was not able to practice in the location.

The 50-mile radius requirement would force the doctor to completely move from the town in which she grew up. The nearby towns are saturated with doctors and she would not be able to acquire many patients, if any, in those towns. She is now considering leaving medicine altogether.

As non-compete clauses have gained popularity, some state courts have moved to deem them invalid altogether, and other states have severely restricted their impact. The ultimate test that the courts have used is the reasonableness of such clauses. What are the various ethical considerations of the impact of the non-compete clause? Do you think that the non-compete clause in this example is reasonable insofar as the combination of distance and length of time? Argue the pros and cons of enforcing this particular clause as it is now written. Are there any professions in which a non-compete clause may be essential?