A new law prohibits high-tech companies, but only those companies in Hawaii, from requiring their employees to enter into „non-competitive“ and „non-favourable“ agreements as a precondition for employment. The new law, Law 158, came into force on July 1, 2015.  IN NOMBREUX STATES, THE JUSTICE COURT IS AUTORISED to properly treat a non-compete agreement that it deems too broad. These blue pencils are almost always in the company`s interest. If the agreement is part of the recruitment process, the contract itself is the consideration. All state courts that accept non-competitive contracts agree that the performance of a contract when the employee begins is a sufficient consideration, as well as a major change in the work, such as the promise of an increase or promotion. If the company introduces the agreement after hiring (because its policy or employee responsibilities change), an increase or promotion is likely to be qualified as sufficient consideration. But some state courts (Utah and Virginia, for example) may consider that maintaining employment is sufficient if the employer can prove that the employee fired because he did not sign the contract. Unlike other legal systems that follow the general rule that the review is important only to determine whether it exists and not whether it is appropriate, Illinois will verify the adequacy of the consideration. The majority of courts will need service employment for at least two years to support a non-competition agreement (or any other type of restrictive pact). However, in some cases where a worker is particularly severe, the courts have demanded less. THE types of compensation provisions that include a non-compete clause can vary considerably. In the end, most courts will award sufficient amounts to have the business reoccupied in the position it would have held if the offence had not occurred, and most of them will pay liquidated damages if they are reasonable and are not intended as a sanction. In Ohio, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court held that, in the case of an employee at will, maintaining employment was sufficient to make the agreement applicable. It`s not enough that your employer simply doesn`t want you to bring your skills and skills to a competitor. There must be a good reason for non-competition bans. For example, if the employer introduces you to the best customer, there may be a legitimate interest in preventing you from going to a competitor and luring those customers away. Goodwill developed in relation to customers gives the employer a competitive advantage. They can prevent you from withdrawing capital from it, so they are entitled to protection. Non-competition prohibitions are enforced in appropriate circumstances in Massachusetts.  For example, in Florida, the law supports non-competitions, so the facts of your situation and the state in which you live determine where the agreement is applied against you. What is considered to be sufficient consideration for staff in exchange for the signing of a non-competition agreement? Many competition prohibitions use the legal term „sufficient consideration“ to express the employer`s benefit (compensation) to the employee in exchange for a commitment not to compete.