non-compete clause in Virginia

2010When “the non-compete clause is ambiguous and susceptible to two or more differing interpretations, at least one of which is functionally overbroad, the clause is unenforceable.” Lanmark Tech., Inc. v. Canales, 454 F. Supp. 2d 524, 531 (E.D.

2008When “the non-compete clause is ambiguous and susceptible to two or more differing interpretations, at least one of which is functionally overbroad, the clause is unenforceable.” Landmark Tech., Inc. v. Canales, 454 F. Supp. 2d 524, 531 (E.D.

2012Corp. v. US Investigations Servs., Inc., 270 Va. 246, 249 , 618 S.E.2d 340 (2005).

2012Corp. v. US Investigations Servs., Inc., 270 Va. 246, 249 , 618 S.E.2d 340 (2005).

2009In its rationale, the Court upheld the clause because the agreement specifically clarified that the non-compete clause was not meant to “preclude [the] [e]mployees from working in the medical industry in some role which would not compete with the business of the [e]mployer.” Id. at 373 , 389 S.E.2d at 469 .

2009In its rationale, the Court upheld the clause because the agreement specifically clarified that the non-compete clause was not meant to “preclude [the] [e]mployees from working in the medical industry in some role which would not compete with the business of the [e]mployer.” Id. at 373 , 389 S.E.2d at 469 .

2026See Motion Control Sys., 262 Va. at 37 ; cf. Modern Env’ts v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 494-96 (2002) (holding that a non-compete clause was overbroad and unenforceable because it prohibited the employee from being employed in any capacity by a competitor, rather than limiting the restriction to activities that directly competed with the former employer’s business).2 2 Appellant suggests that appellees tried to “rehabilitate [Nagulavancha’s] breach by stating he never violated the non-solicitation clause.” But the non-solicitation clause appellant references was an entirely separate provision: it

2026See Motion Control Sys., 262 Va. at 37 ; cf. Modern Env’ts v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 494-96 (2002) (holding that a non-compete clause was overbroad and unenforceable because it prohibited the employee from being employed in any capacity by a competitor, rather than limiting the restriction to activities that directly competed with the former employer’s business).2 2 Appellant suggests that appellees tried to “rehabilitate [Nagulavancha’s] breach by stating he never violated the non-solicitation clause.” But the non-solicitation clause appellant references was an entirely separate provision: it

2010In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the grounds for vacatur provided in the Act, including the present challenge to the arbitrators' exercise of their powers, do not permit a court to overturn an arbitration award based merely on a party's disagreement with the arbitrators' decision. *679 Remmey v. PaineWebber, Inc., 32 F.3d 143, 146 (4th Cir.1994). "[P]arties may not seek a `second bite at the apple' simply because they desire a different outcome." Id.

2010In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the grounds for vacatur provided in the Act, including the present challenge to the arbitrators' exercise of their powers, do not permit a court to overturn an arbitration award based merely on a party's disagreement with the arbitrators' decision. *679 Remmey v. PaineWebber, Inc., 32 F.3d 143, 146 (4th Cir.1994). "[P]arties may not seek a `second bite at the apple' simply because they desire a different outcome." Id.

2010By having a life wholly unto itself, this covenant may grow more oppressive without restriction day by day, week by week, month by month, or year by year.” Lawrence v. Business Communications of Va., Inc., 53 Va. Cir. 102, 103 (2000).

2009Similarly, in Roanoke Eng’g Sales Co. v. Rosenbaum, supra, the Supreme Court of Virginia enforced a non-compete clause that prohibited a former employee from assuming a wide variety of duties with “any business similar to the type of business conducted by [the employer].” Roanoke Eng’g, 223 Va. at 551, 290 S.E.2d at 883 .

2009Similarly, in Roanoke Eng’g Sales Co. v. Rosenbaum, supra, the Supreme Court of Virginia enforced a non-compete clause that prohibited a former employee from assuming a wide variety of duties with “any business similar to the type of business conducted by [the employer].” Roanoke Eng’g, 223 Va. at 551, 290 S.E.2d at 883 .