The consulting contracts also prohibited independent contractors from asking a Metis employee or contractor to terminate, among other things, their employment or any other contractual relationship with Metis during the term of the consulting contracts and subsequently for two years. However, the courts have not yet made this argument in which such non-competition agreements have been challenged. [13] In a particular case in Virginia, the Tribunal upheld a non-compete agreement reasonably tailored to the protection of the employer`s interests and found that it was contrary to public policy. [14] Given that the agreement was so narrow that it only affected a particular project, which in the meantime was abandoned by the Agency, the Tribunal found that it was not broad enough to qualify for cancellation. [15] This case was, however, negotiated between a state contractor and its subcontractor, not between a contractor and his former collaborator. [16] On March 7, 2019, Senator Rubio sent a letter to the U.S. General Accountability Office with a group of bipartisan senators. The letter called on the GAO to examine the impact of anti-competitive agreements on workers and the economy as a whole. The letter points out that the «broad use» of competition bans has «extended to highly technical sectors and less technical wages» and points out that several commentators have expressed concerns about the expansionary use of non-competition guarantees. One final clue: in Virginia, the non-competition clause is factual and each case is different. An experienced lawyer who is not in competition can weigh the factors, for example.

B the conditions, context and habits of the sector to reduce the risk during a transition to employment. It should be noted that the non-competition contract only prohibited working on the Business Systems Modernization project, with a discreet number of companies, Accenture and the eight other competitors. Gpes` employment was not overly limited because, as one witness testified in court, there were more than 400-500 other programming jobs in Washington, D.C., an area that were not prohibited by the contract. Finally, the Court held that the absence of a geographical restriction for the treaty was not fatal, since the non-competition clause was limited to a particular project.