DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo: The Case for Proper Waste Management

Introduction

In the DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo case of 2006, the three defendants namely, George Castillo, Adolfo Martinez, and Eloy Castilo for alleged breach of the noncompete agreements signed when they agreed to work for the company. During inception of employment at the company, the employees signed non-compete agreements which according to DCS barred the employees from working for another company or serving previous clients for a year after leaving DCS. However, the employees were employed by a rival company which resulted in a law suit sighting the terms of the non-compete agreements. The District Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that the employees were within their rights to be employed subsequent to working for DCS given that the contract would hinder workers from working in the field for a year. The decisions were arrived at relying on Nebraska labor laws as opposed to Ohio, where the company operations were based and contracts signed. However, the court established that Nebraska law was ideal given that there was substantial material interest in Nebraska. 

Implications for employers and employees

Non-compete agreements are deemed vital by companies which intend to protect copyrights and patents to their business practices or company policies (Cihon et al., 2017). This is undertaken to prevent competition by employees who have insider information about a company’s practices and which would give an upper-hand to its competitors. It is vital for an employer to ensure that their non-compete agreements are reasonable (Cihon et al., 2017). Reasonable agreements are vital given the fact that some state laws completely dismiss unreasonable non-compete clauses without providing an opportunity for clause amendments. On the other hand, employees sign non-compete agreements which bind them to specific terms concerning termination and working for rivals or starting a competing business (Cihon et al., 2017). It is in the best interest for employees to ensure that the terms of non-compete agreements are neither oppressive or intimidating. Non-compete clauses therefore bind employees from using information acquired during their employment to gain an upper hand over their employer. 

Compare and contrast between Ohio and Nebraska positions on non-compete clauses 

Both Nebraska and Ohio state laws identify the imperative and binding nature of the non-compete agreements and therefore both states identify the importance of employers and employees to observe the terms of non-compete agreements ( Lester et al., 2009) . However, the two states differ on the recognition and subsequent treatment of the reasonability clause in non-compete agreements. While both states identify the existence of reasonable and unreasonable non-compete agreements, Nebraska state courts do not reform or alter non-compete clauses to make them reasonable but rather make a ruling based on the unreasonable nature of the clauses ( Lester et al., 2009) . On the other hand, Ohio state laws provide an opportunity for the courts of law to alter and reform unreasonable agreements that are overly broad in a bid to make them enforceable ( Lester et al., 2009) . This accords a plaintiff with recourse in the case that the previously signed non-compete agreement is not admissible due to vagueness or being broad and unreasonable. 

Conclusion 

Ethical reasoning demands for the intentional identification of just and equity in the performance of professional and normal duties by both individuals and organizations. Nebraska state law requires total dismissal of non-compete agreements and the remedies available to aggrieved parties if the agreement is deemed as being unreasonable ( Lester et al., 2009) . This provision may provide refuge for employees given that erroneous terms and clauses may result in failure to seek justice by an aggrieved employer. On the other hand, Ohio’s laws, which provide room for adjustment of clauses and alterations in the case that an agreement is unreasonable, provide legal recourse for aggrieved employees ( Lester et al., 2009) . Ohio’s laws are therefore more ethical given the fact that they provide aggrieved parties with the chance to seek legal aid in the case that an employee attempts unfair business practices. 

References 

Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning 

Lester, G., & Ryan, E. (2009). Choice of Law and Employee Restrictive Covenants: An American Perspective.” Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J., 31, p. 389.