VODood said:
BTW, Ohio is a right to work state, therefore a non-compete is null and void, unless the talent is being paid a severance package. No pay? Non-compete is worthless.
Hi there guys, thought I'd jump in here to correct a couple misconceptions about this topic. The above is a bit confusing, as one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The belief that it does has been a rampant error of fact in the radio biz in Cleveland for some time.
First of all, Ohio is not a "Right to Work" state. Ohio is an "At-Will" employment state. You can see the Right to Work states here:
http://www.nrtwc.org/i/usmap.png
For some reason, the belief that Ohio is a right to work state has been mentioned in radio circles - however it is not true. There have been
several Bills proposed in Ohio's Congress to pass a Right to Work laws going as far back as 1958, however they've always been soundly crushed due to the proliferation of Unions and their influence throughout the state. Furthermore, you have to understand that
Right to Work has nothing to do with "non-competes". Right to Work laws give prospective employees the right to work in a state without being forced to join a union. That is essentially it.
You can read about the efforts to make Ohio a Right to Work state here:
http://www.nrtwc.org/states/oh.htm
Non-competes are a completely different animal. A number of states have passed legislation that makes it illegal to restrict employment, specifically via non-competes in broadcasting. Illinois is indeed one of those states. They passed "Public Act 92-0496" in 1992 that says the following,
"No broadcasting industry employer may require in an employment contract that an employee or prospective employee refrain from obtaining employment in a specific geographic area for a specific period of time after termination of employment with that broadcasting industry employer"
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/employ/non-compete-03.htm
If that previous poster is correct and Rover's previous contract was through the Chicago station and signed in Illinois, then there will indeed be no non-compete clause attached to it. If KRock inherited the contract, then they were saddle with all terms and conditions of it.
Ohio law can be very tricky with regards to non-competes. The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that non-competes are justifiable in certain cases. However Ohio has a "Blue Pencil Rule" that allows the Court to re-write the terms of the non-compete if it is too broadly written or overly restictive. It's usually done on a case by case basis and even depends on the Judge and the Court hearing the case.
"courts in Ohio recognized the validity of agreements that restrict competition by an ex-employee if they contain reasonable geographical and temporal restrictions"
"the Ohio Supreme Court held that continued at-will employment was sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. That is, since the employer has the right to terminate an employee at any time"
"an employer can require non-competition agreements from all of its employees and can terminate, without legal liability, those employees who refuse to sign."
http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/Ohio-non-competition-law-article-cases.htm
That does not mean that all non-competes will stand up in Ohio. It comes down to a case-by-case basis, depending on how broadly or over restrictive the clause is written and the Judge and Court that is hearing it. It is believed that a challenge by a broadcaster to their non-compete clause can be successful in Ohio, however by the time it is defeated, the term of the non-compete will have most likely been met since most Courts will issue an injunction enforcing the clause until the matter is resolved.
This is moot anyhow, if Rover's contract was indeed signed in Illinois.
