Non-compete clause
restricts an employee from competing after leaving — within limits courts police closely: reasonable scope, duration and geography, protectable interests, and in several countries mandatory compensation (Germany: at least 50% of pay for the restraint period; France: meaningful indemnity by case law).
Drafting restraints that survive
- Protectable interest first: client relationships, trade secrets, not competition suppression — courts void naked restraints.
- Scope discipline: role-relevant activities, realistic geography, durations of 6–12 months (two years is the outer edge where allowed).
- Compensation where owed: Germany’s paid Karenzentschädigung and French indemnities are validity conditions, not options; Switzerland allows unpaid clauses within strict limits.
- Waiver mechanics: reserve the right to waive on exit — releasing the restraint releases the payment in systems that price it.
- Local variation: some markets barely enforce them; check before relying.
FAQ
Are non-competes enforceable against ordinary employees?
Decreasingly: courts confine enforcement to roles with genuine access to secrets or clients, and several jurisdictions restrict use for lower-paid staff. Blanket non-competes across the workforce signal weakness, not protection — target the clauses where interests are real.
What happens if the clause is too broad?
Depends on the system: some courts blue-pencil to a reasonable scope, others void the clause entirely — a drafting gamble. The safer approach writes the minimum defensible restraint and pairs it with confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses, which enforce far more readily.