Download BEM 3565Employment Law Unit 1 Case Study In the case study 1 and more Lecture notes Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! BEM 3565 Employment Law Unit 1 Case Study In the case study 1.6 DCS Sanitation Management v. Eloy Castillo I do find the hiring of the DCS employees by Packers to be unethical however on their behalf a smart business move. When they hired, them they did take away all DCS’s employees that DCS had trained to work in this plant. By Packers hiring those employees they kept the employees employed as well as they were able to keep the client happy by no loss in coverage when they took over the contract. One thing when requiring noncompete agreements we have to remember that it is usually a condition of employment and if it is not then we have to offer something monetarily for the employee entering into the agreement after the employee has already started work for the company, otherwise it may not be valid. (This is how it works in Wyoming, I was just involved in a case where the employees stepped out on the employer and started a competing company.) The courts will restrict the employee if the employer has established harm to the business, and the limitations set forth in the contract must be reasonable (J. Moran, 2014). I do believe that companies that hire personnel to clean buildings to be allowed to require them to sign non-compete agreements. They should have the right to protect their trade secrets as well as their assets and let’s face it the employees are the biggest asset to most employers because without them they cannot make money. I do see the resolution of this case to be ethical. The original non-compete stated that for a period of one year following the date of termination of employment for any reason, I will not directly engage in, or in any manner be concerned with or employed by any person, firm, or corporation in competition with DCS. However, they also included Applicable law: this agreement shall be subject to and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Ohio. This is where the courts were right in not enforcing the non-compete. The did not conclude that Nebraska law applies and the work was in Nebraska. The Nebraska laws with non-competes state the following; a noncompete agreement is valid if it is not injurious to the public, is not greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest, and not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee (DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edupara 6). The Nebraska law also stated. “An employer has a legitimate business interest in protection against a former employee’s competition by improper and unfair means, but is not entitled to protection against ordinary competition from a former employee from working for or soliciting the former employer’s clients or accounts with whom the former employee actually did business and has personal contact.” Since the employees went to work for someone else the courts ruled with the laws of Nebraska because although they had this written up and the employees agreed to it while working for them, it is not reasonable and it is against Nebraska law. Also, the courts found this to affect the workers who rely on cleaning plants and buildings for their livelihood from working within a reasonable distance from their residence. You cannot expect a person to move out of town for work away from their home or family it is just not reasonable. References Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. ( I do not have this book yet so I was not able to use it in this paper). DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu.
