• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Non-compete clause in Arizona

N

nascar_red

Guest
What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts for broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board thought they were outlawed in 2002, yet we saw that Kent Dana had to wait a number of months before he could join KPHO.
 
> What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts for
> broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board thought
> they were outlawed in 2002, yet we saw that Kent Dana had to
> wait a number of months before he could join KPHO.
>

ARS 23-494 prohibits non-compete clauses for broadcasters. I find it interesting that it doesn't mention other occupations. I'm a contract software developer; non-compete clauses are standard in my line of work, although I'm not sure if they're enforceable, as Arizona is a right-to-work state.

Link: ARS 23-494
 
> What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts for
> broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board thought
> they were outlawed in 2002, yet we saw that Kent Dana had to
> wait a number of months before he could join KPHO.
>
I'm confused too.
If an employee decides to leave on their own terms (quit to go across the street), can it be enforced?
If an employee is let go due to the fact that the current contract will not be renewed or is let go, due to reasons beyond employees decision, can it be enforced?

Is it they can't be in the chair for the allotted time, but talent can "shake hands and kiss babies", but their image or name can not be shown?

I understand that Dana had to sit out six months.
Same with Hoon at FOX10 when he left KPNX.

I'm telling you, it's confusiing.
 
> > What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts for
>
> > broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board thought
>
> > they were outlawed in 2002, yet we saw that Kent Dana had
> to
> > wait a number of months before he could join KPHO.
> >
> I'm confused too.
> If an employee decides to leave on their own terms (quit to
> go across the street), can it be enforced?
> If an employee is let go due to the fact that the current
> contract will not be renewed or is let go, due to reasons
> beyond employees decision, can it be enforced?
>
> Is it they can't be in the chair for the allotted time, but
> talent can "shake hands and kiss babies", but their image or
> name can not be shown?
>
> I understand that Dana had to sit out six months.
> Same with Hoon at FOX10 when he left KPNX.
>
> I'm telling you, it's confusiing.
>

Noncompetes in broadcasting were outlawed in 2002, with existing ones grandfathered in. If you signed one the day before the bill was signed into law, you have a non-compete. Kent had one dating back to his last contract renewal at KPNX.

Since the new law, we've seen a few cases of talent leaving one station and appearing on a competitor in a matter of days (Kim Dillon from KNXV to KTVK, Mike Warren from KTVK to KNXV, Jan D'Atri from AZ-TV to KPNX, and I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting).

As for the examples cited by the previous poster, it was usually easier (but by no means easy) to beat a non-compete in court if the parting of the ways was the station's idea. You could make the argument that you had to earn a living. But, generally, if you quit, the court would take the view that you knew you had a non-compete clause when you walked...and you'd have to honor it.

What made non-competes especially onerous was the "back end"...the fact that the very process of beating a non-compete was something other prospective employers would tend to shy away from. If you sued your old station, you were litigious...would the next station want to take that risk? For a top-flight anchor talent, maybe. For most on-air talent, probably not. And that next station, no matter how much they wanted you, couldn't get involved in your battle unless they were up from a lawsuit from your former station alleging contract tampering. And, of course, if you lost, they'd have to move along to the next candidate...or wait six months for you (again, KPHO considered Kent Dana worth the wait).

---Michael Hagerty
 
> Noncompetes in broadcasting were outlawed in 2002, with
> existing ones grandfathered in. If you signed one the day
> before the bill was signed into law, you have a non-compete.
> Kent had one dating back to his last contract renewal at
> KPNX.
>

If you had a pre-2002 contract with the clause, and renewed with your current station, is it a new contract that would, in this case cease to have a non-compete clause, or could it be an extention of the original contract with all of the terms and conditions staying in place?
 
> > What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts for
>
> > broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board thought
>
> > they were outlawed in 2002, yet we saw that Kent Dana had
> to
> > wait a number of months before he could join KPHO.
> >
>
> ARS 23-494 prohibits non-compete clauses for broadcasters.
> I find it interesting that it doesn't mention other
> occupations. I'm a contract software developer; non-compete
> clauses are standard in my line of work, although I'm not
> sure if they're enforceable, as Arizona is a right-to-work
> state.
>
> Link: ARS 23-494
>
Courts will generally uphold a non-compete clause within reason. A software developer would probably be upheld in this case. If you developed software to run a hotel or resturant system. They would allow a non compete clause for a reasonable number of years. That is as it pertains to developing software for hotels or restuarnts.

Because you could develope software for other industries this would NOT interfere with your ability to work in the idustries. So depending on how limiting your clause was, determains if it will be upheld.

So if your non-compete clause says you couldn't develope software period it would probably be tossed. Again the judge would look at your background. Supposing you could also do computer programming. Then the judge might rule you still could make a living in another area.

Non compete clauses can vary from person to person as well as judge to judge. Currently there is no federal law on the issue so it varies from state to state.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> If you had a pre-2002 contract with the clause, and renewed
> with your current station, is it a new contract that would,
> in this case cease to have a non-compete clause, or could it
> be an extention of the original contract with all of the
> terms and conditions staying in place?

The station might try to argue it as an extension, but since there'd have to be a document indicating the date the parties agreed to the extension (after the law had taken effect), the case could be made that the non-compete clause would be null and void anyway. Parties cannot legally agree to break the law.

----Michael Hagerty
 
> Noncompetes in broadcasting were outlawed in 2002, with
> existing ones grandfathered in. If you signed one the day
> before the bill was signed into law, you have a non-compete.
> Kent had one dating back to his last contract renewal at
> KPNX.
>
> Since the new law, we've seen a few cases of talent leaving
> one station and appearing on a competitor in a matter of
> days (Kim Dillon from KNXV to KTVK, Mike Warren from KTVK to
> KNXV, Jan D'Atri from AZ-TV to KPNX, and I'm sure there are
> others I'm forgetting).
>
> As for the examples cited by the previous poster, it was
> usually easier (but by no means easy) to beat a non-compete
> in court if the parting of the ways was the station's idea.
> You could make the argument that you had to earn a living.
> But, generally, if you quit, the court would take the view
> that you knew you had a non-compete clause when you
> walked...and you'd have to honor it.
>
> What made non-competes especially onerous was the "back
> end"...the fact that the very process of beating a
> non-compete was something other prospective employers would
> tend to shy away from. If you sued your old station, you
> were litigious...would the next station want to take that
> risk? For a top-flight anchor talent, maybe. For most on-air
> talent, probably not. And that next station, no matter how
> much they wanted you, couldn't get involved in your battle
> unless they were up from a lawsuit from your former station
> alleging contract tampering. And, of course, if you lost,
> they'd have to move along to the next candidate...or wait
> six months for you (again, KPHO considered Kent Dana worth
> the wait).
>
> ---Michael Hagerty
>

Articulately explained.
Thank you.
 
> > > What is the status of non-compete clauses in contracts
> for
> >
> > > broadcasters in Arizona. Someone on another board
> thought
> >
> > > they were outlawed in 2002....

Issue arose a couple of years ago when Brian Jeffries, radio voice of the Wildcats, was employed by clear channel KNST. UA radio contract went up for bid and Citadel won. Jeffries contract was pre 2002 and there was a legal showdown. CC backed down pretty quickly due to several factors, not the least of which was that Jeffies is popular with fans (not to mention the University) and the PR would have been pretty bad. However the subject of the legality of the clause--grandfathered--was discussed in the paper and not surprisingly Jeffies lawyer was pretty certain that it was winnable in court since the law had changed. CC caved pretty quickly but as I noted, PR fallout could have also been a concern. Jeffries went up the dial to KCUB. It was a pretty interesting series of events in the paper here. Who knows how much it cost Jeffries (or Citadel who already made a pretty impressive commitment to win the broadcast package) but they got a very aggressive lawyer to handle it.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom