Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Unit I Case StudyCourse Textbook: Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Reference AttachedPlease read the case DCS Sanitation Manag
Unit I Case Study
Course Textbook: Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Reference Attached
Please read the case DCS Sanitation Management v. Eloy Castillo (and supporting notes), linked in the reference below:
DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=http://www-lexisnexiscom.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui? oc=00240&hnsd=f&hgn=t&lni=4J44-6R600038X2H9&hns=t&perma=true&hv=t&hl=t&csi=270944%2C270077%2C11059%2C8411&secondRedirectIndicator=true
Once you have read and reviewed the case scenario, respond to the following questions:
1. Discuss the legal implications for employers and employees for requiring employees to sign noncompete agreements. What factors did the court consider in making its decision? Compare and contrast Ohio and Nebraska's positions on noncompete clauses.
2. Which state’s laws support ethical reasoning in the resolution of this case?
Your response should be a minimum of two pages in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA style citations.
References:
Course Textbook(s) Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://advance-lexiscom.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/api/permalink/d34471c6-4b5b-4640-8dbe202b87d433b1/?context=1516831
- @
- 962 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $25.00. See answer's preview
******* * *********** ***** ************************************ a non-compete ***** ****************** * *** implication ** **** ***** ** *** Trade Secrets ********** *** ***** rewards the ******** * ***** obligation ** charge *** dodger *** ******* *********** ******* or disclosure ** ***** secret *** ** **** ** * strict ******* ** ************ the ************* ***** many ** *** employers *** ******** ** *** ************* ***** at the ************ ************* time ** get *** ***** *** ********** (Cihon ***** Castagnera 1988) ** fact *** ***** are ****** ** *********** ******* *** ********* **** ***** **** The adherence ** the ******** ** ****** *** **** ***** ** the ***** **** the validity ** *** ********* ** validated depending ** *** period *** ********** ******** ********* in the *********** *********** *** **** ** *** *** ****** ***** suggested **** Nebraska ******* a ******** ******** ******** in *************** arrangements **** ***** ** significantly *********** ** ******** ********* *** *** ** *** The court ******* ** *** strength ** *** ********* *** ********* ** ** ** ***** thus invalid ******* & **** ***** ******** ****** *** *** ***** distracts a ******* *********** between *** groups and the ********** ******** ** *** point **** *** previous representatives as **** ** *** ********* **** the ********* in ******** the *************** at **** time **** ** ** ********** in *** ***** the ********** **** ** ******** *** non-competing deterrence condition ********* *** really ******* job in ******** ***** *** *** function ******** in ******** **** state has * wide *** ********* ********* **** *** *** ***** **** *** ***** ************ amongst *** *** ********** *** **** ** *** ******** of ******* company main ******* *** *********** area ** ***** ** Ohio ***** *** * **** of *********** ** any agreement or *********** Following ***** conditions *** regional ***** ******* ******* **** **** has ** useful ********** ** *** ********** and ******** *** * ******* ******** **** *** *** ********* ******* ***** Ryan ************** *** ****** ** ***** **** *** most *********** ******* ** *** ********** and *** ******** ** where *** meeting ** agreed ********** *** lived (the ******** ***** *** ***** and where *** execution ********* In ******* ********* *** **** ********* *** reached *** use ** exclusive ********* ** ******** ** *** *** ** *** ****** of the selected ***** ***** ** ** a disagreement with *** ***** ******** ** a ***** **** a **** ******* ****** zeal **** the ******** state ** the foundations uttered ** ******** ****** *** ****** ******** *** **** ****** have ****** *********** ********** ** ******** the ********** ** the ********* clarifications *********** on the same ******** *********** **** is definitely wider ***** ************ *** is ************* ****** ** avoid *** ****** conflicts ** the other **** ** **** **** *** ****** **** ************ period is ******** **** ** ********* ******* *** ****** to ** ******* in **** ********* ***** & Rubinstein ******* *** ***** ** ******** ** *** court ******* a non-competing **** ** ridiculous **** ********* *** affirmation ** *** non-competing ** not likely ** ****** ** *** ********** ******* ** **** the main *** is ** **** ** *********** **** ** ******* ** *** ******** of **** ****** ** **** ****** ** transform *** ********** wide or ******* ************* adjustments *** **** **** **** *** ***** court ****** ********** **** as * ****** of ******** ****** ********* ********* *** ***** ******* of ************* *********** *** ** Ohio *** is ****** ** ********* * ***** strategy of *** ******** *** ***** ***** ********** ************* 2Ethical ********* from *** **** when ******** ********* a fundamental **** **** for the indentures and utilization of Ohio *** ** ***** to ******* * major *********** of ******** law ** *** agenda ** ************** *** ********** ** the non-competing ********** **** ** ******* *************** of determining *** law ************ on *** ************ **** *** selected state didn’t **** connections ** *** meetings *** *** exchange *** *** ** *** ********* law ** ***** ***** abuse * stable clear ******** in the ******** ***** ******** ******** *** to * ****** considerate of non-competing performance ********** *** use of **** *** **** ********** the transmission ** excessive preventive non-competing ********** as **** ** ******* ************* ***** *** ***** *** ***** ** ******** key strategies ******* ********** ***** ****** *************** ***** * * ***** Castagnera J *********** *** ********** *** ***************** * ***** **** * ****** Choice ** Law *** Employee Restrictive ********** An ******** *************** *** * ***** **** J31 389Garrison * * ***** ***** * * ****** *** ******** law ** ******** *********** *********** ****** ****** and an alternative ****** **************** Business *** Journal45(1) *********** * * & Rubinstein * * ****** ******* the ******* Court--State *********** *** ******* ************* * ***** 762Kadish S * ********** * J & ****** * * (2016)Criminal *** and *** ********** ***** *** ********* ******* ****** Law ***** ********
