When an employer attempts to impose a Minnesota non-compete agreement, counsel for the former employee will often attempt to prove that the employer has not consistently enforced its non-compete prohibitions compared to other similar employees in the past. This defence, often referred to as „selectivity,“ is relevant on two levels: Mr. Francavilla filed a CV with StockerYale, a Massachusetts company that manufactures special fiberglass products. On October 31, 2001, StockerYale gave him a job offer for the position of Director of Production and Specialized Fibre Optics. He tendered his resignation and informed his superiors that his last day would be November 23, 2001 and that his new employer was not a direct competitor. However, 3M sued Mr. Francavilla in the Federal Court when he learned of the identity of his new employer and asked the court to enforce the non-competition agreement. The Tribunal found that Mr. Francavilla had violated the restrictive confederation and granted 3M`s request to bring a cease and desealion action to prevent Mr. Francavilla from remaining in StockerYale.
In this case, the agreement contained in the agreement was knowingly concluded for appropriate consideration. While the court recognizes that an injunction to oust the jobs of competition is a more difficult remedy than an injunction to prohibit the disclosure of the former employer`s trade secrets, it is, in certain circumstances, such as this, a perfectly appropriate and necessary remedy, since both the employer and the worker have made a deliberate decision in the performance of Confederation. Here, 3M decided that it would allow the defendant to have access to confidential information about 3M`s product development. If the accused preferred not to give the bund, 3M could have chosen not to hire him. Similarly, the defendant decided to seize the opportunity to participate in the sensitive and confidential development of 3M`s products and signed the agreement which, in its view, was a precondition for a specialized work opportunity. If the defendant preferred not to be bound by the agreement, he could have reduced the possibility for specialized work to 3M. While these considerations do not justify the application of agreements in situations where this would be inappropriate, they justify the implementation of appropriate protections against employer disclosure of any confidential information regarding the development of a new product, including certain confidential information that is not technically likely to protect trade secrets. See Continental Group, Inc. Kinsley, 422 F.Supp. 838, 844-45 (D.Conn. 1976).
In Kirkevold, the plaintiff, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) fired a lawsuit against the defendant, Kent A. Kirkevold, a former 3M employee. Kirkevold worked from 1964 to 1979 as a chemist and technician for 3M. On February 24, 1964, Kirkevold signed an employment contract with 3M, which contained an agreement not to disclose confidential information and an agreement not to compete. The applicant`s application for referral (doc. 4) under Rule 65 A) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures is brought before the Tribunal. The applicant, Minnesota Mining – Manufacturing Co. („3M“), brought this action against his former collaborator, the defendant Sergio Francavilla, for alleged breach of an employment contract („arrangement“). 3M has now sought an injunction to ensure that the defendant is able to work for one of its competitors, StockerYale.