Yesterday, IBM sued Microsoft for poacherously its chief diversity officer, Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, in violation of its non-competition with IBM. Ibm explained specifically that, to remedy this extension, the court proposed that employers agree with the unique information that each employee will have access to and consider the list of industries that the employer wants to protect. Competition bans – the legally binding documents that many companies ask their employees to prevent them from collaborating with their competitors, usually for a set period of time and in a limited geographical area – are a hot topic in a staff-oriented economy, especially at a time when most employees do not stay in the same company for a longer period of time. IBM`s decision to prosecute a longtime human resources manager for a new job at Microsoft raises questions among attorneys who specialize in employment contracts and non-compete. Earlier this week, IBM filed a lawsuit against its former vice president and chief diversity officer, Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, claiming her new role as Microsoft`s chief diversity officer violated a one-year no-go deal. Although competition bans are widespread in the technology sector, it is unusual for a company to impose them through a role that is not related to its product or core business. Non-competition is not an instrument for staff retention. An employee non-competition clause is a document and a mechanism of protection of the company, just like the signature of the confirmation of the personnel manual. Non-competitors do not guarantee that an employee, when employed in good faith, remains loyal to a company and does not destroy the company from within. Earlier this month, IBM sued its former CIO Jeff Smith for allegedly violating its non-compete clause when he accepted a position at Amazon Web Services. IBM identified Smith`s familiarity with the problematic company`s product development plans, given AWS` position as the leading competitor to cloud computing.
The General Court analysed in detail what it found for overly extensive restrictions in the intended non-competition clause. . . .