Since “cessation” involves voluntary dismissal, i.e. resignation, the new law offers more creative employees a near-complete end to their non-competition agreements. In theory, such an employee could resign, then ask for some time for review and wait until the 30-day period elapses before immediately starting to work with a competitor or doing other activity in violation of its competition agreement. If the employer does not provide a copy of the agreement within the prescribed time frame, the employer has no recourse mechanism at the end of the 30 days. Employers with workers residing in Oregon should consider not only adopting a policy that, at the end of each worker, makes its non-competitors available to all workers, but also an inventory of existing competition agreements and introducing strict guidelines for the maintenance and monitoring of these agreements. Because competition bans can sometimes unduly limit a worker`s chances of finding a new job, Oregon courts and legislators tend to scrutinize them when they are valid (and with great suspicion). In 2007, Oregon lawmakers passed a law (codified in Oregon Revised Statutes p. 653.295) that severely restricts the application of non-competition prohibitions. Under the new law, the applicability of non-compete clauses is based on four general questions: speak to an employment lawyer in Portland for all your legal needs related to non-compete clauses. It is important that the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant`s argument that the recorded information could not constitute a trade secret because it had been removed from memory. B, unlike a tangible form (e.g., emails, copies on a USB drive, etc.). The court found that this argument was not supported by textual support in Oregon`s uniform trade secret act and stated: “The imspectation of the law suggests that information that would otherwise constitute a trade secret would lose that status simply because a person is able to take that information back in an immaterial form. .
. . On the contrary, the provisions of the law are broad to protect trade secrets, whatever form they may take. 297 Or. App. 430-31. Without this limitation in the statutes, the Tribunal found that the evidence provided by Pelican Bay was “sufficient to enable a reasonable fact-seeker to find that the accused had “hijacked” the confidential information of Pelican Bay`s clients.