As a reminder, some states require additional consideration beyond employment to support non-competitive and non-favourable provisions. If a worker is reinstated to one of these countries, employers may not only be required to sign a new agreement with post-employment restrictions, but also to pay the necessary additional consideration. About a year and a half later, Novo Nordisk Russomano again announced that his position had been eliminated and that he was ending his employment “with effect as of August 3, 2018”. The letter acknowledged that Russomano had to find a new job and encouraged him to apply for vacancies in the company. Russomano did so and got a new position in the company “effective August 6, 2018” (the Monday after August 3 ended his work with the company). Russomano was not required to sign a new confidentiality or competition incapacity agreement in the context of the adoption of this new position. Russomano was hired by Novo Nordisk in 2016 and signed a confidentiality agreement and a one-year non-compete contract as a precondition for employment. Later in 2016, Russomano was informed that his position would be eliminated and dismissed. He again applied for a vacancy with the company and, after about three weeks without being employed by Novo Nordisk, was reinstated for a new position. As a precondition for reinstatement, Russomano signed a second confidentiality and competition agreement with the same conditions as the original agreement. Finally, it should be noted that the obligation to protect confidential information in the agreements signed by Russomano had no expiry date and remained bound by the provisions of those provisions.
To the extent that employers are trying to bring back workers who have been made redundant, dismissed or dismissed as a result of the pandemic, they should consider whether new non-competition agreements with returning workers are necessary. The court found that the appeals court accepted that the one-year non-compete clause began to run when Russomano`s employment was terminated in August 2018 and expired several months before his resignation in August 2019. For this decision, the two courts relied on the language of the letter sent by Novo Nordisk to Russomano, in which they informed him that his employment was “at the end of the contract” and that the termination was “effective as of 3 August”. The courts also emphasized the employer`s use of the word “effective” in the letter on the start date of Russomano`s new position.