Question

Each individual student will complete one current event assignment during the first week of class. Employment Law Current Event (ELCEs) are reports from student-selected articles from current newspapers, magazines, or reliable electronic sources. Students should prepare a one to two-page, single-spaced (Times 12-point font with one inch margins) summary and analysis of the article and prepare three to five discussion questions related to the article. Proper grammar, usage, and a professional format are expected. The heading of the report should include the APA citation of the article, the link (if an electronic source) and your name in the following centered format:

LCE [#]: Lincoln, A. (1863). The rest of the things I forgot to say. Washington DC News of the Day, 21(14), 41–47.
[Include a live link to the article here]
[YourNamesGoesHere]

In addition to the heading and a link to the article, the report should consist of at least four paragraphs (you may have more) including:

Paragraph 1: A brief summary of the article including the legal issue/decision

Paragraph 2: Your comments and analysis of the article including your assessment of whether the decision/outcome was fair/appropriate. This is the longest section of the summary and may include more than one paragraph.

A brief paragraph addressing how the article relates to employment law

A paragraph about the lesson we can learn from the article

Next, include three to five discussion questions to start the article discussion.

The last section should contain a (brief) title and brief (less than 100 words) summary of the article to be used by the class to select the most interesting articles for class discussion.

Answer 1

Caption: Carolina Pride Carwash Inc. v. Tim Kendrick

URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1288840/carolina-pride-carwash-inc-v-kendrick/

Brief Overview: The plaintiff’s organization had made the defendant sign a contract, which restricted the defendant that he cannot work with any of the company’s competitors. However, Kendrick left the organization and had joined another company, for which the plaintiff, Carolina Inc. sued him. In a reply for the same, defendant plead against the plaintiff on various grounds like deceptive trade practices, fraud, and unfair trade practices.

• Plaintiff perspective: The plaintiff’s key argument was that the defendant violated the non compete clause. They claimed that the defendant could not compete in the local geographical location as theirs.

• Defendant Perspective: The defendant claimed that the territorial clause was void

The plaintiff’s appeal was granted initially by the trial court. But the higher courts went against the trial court’s ruling and stated that the territorial clause was unreasonable. This restriction could be considered applicable if the geographical location was small and limited.

Analysis: In my views, the decision taken by higher court was quite valid. The whole objective of having any type of contract is to specify all the possible terms and conditions to facilitate the same. There was no territorial clause in the employment contract and so its usage as an argument was not justifiable. Employers must come up with comprehensive employment contracts where they specify every term and contract which must be specific for the employment.

This case relates to employment law as it highlights the scope and validity of the non-compete clauses used in employment contract. A non-compete clause is also known as restrictive covenant. Under a non-compete clause, the employer restricts the employee from joining competitors in future. This is done to protect the business secrets and trade practices of the company.

Discussion Questions:

• What is employment contract?
• What is the objective and importance of a non-compete clause
• Express your views on the plaintiff’s arguments
• Express your views on the defendant’s arguments
• Do you agree with the case ruling

• Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C. App. 362, 368, 555 S.E.2d 634, 639 (2001)
• Precision Walls, Inc. v. Servie, 152 N.C. App. 630, 636, 568 S.E.2d 267, 272 (2002)

Steps take to avoid or reduce risk/harm:

The terms and conditions of the employment contract needed to be more clear and needed to be communicated clearly to the employees. The management must have ensured the comprehensibility of the contract and must have taken steps to solve their inhibitions and doubts, if any.