We would like to see the Imus agreements banned in the state of New Jersey. We make this statement because over the years we have seen the harm that non-compete agreements can cause to workers in that state who are bound by a non-compete agreement. Prior to this decision, the Tribunal rewrote a no-competition agreement, which was later established as being closer to the surface, in order to bring it in line with the legal standards for protecting the interests of both the individual and the employer. However, in light of the Maw decision, employers may be subject to common law and legal claims for compensation if they take adverse work action against a worker for not signing or acting against an unenforceable agreement. Although in the past these agreements have generally only been applied with more skilled workers, many companies have adopted the practice for workers of all levels and levels of pay. As a result, low-wage workers are unknowingly excluded from a large number of jobs when they separate from a business. Currently, the New Jersey courts decide whether a non-compete agreement is applicable on a case-by-case basis. In general, a non-competition agreement takes effect “if it is appropriate in all circumstances on a case-by-case basis,” i.e. where it “simply protects the legitimate interests of the employer, does not impose unreasonable severity on the worker, and does not harm the public.”  An employer`s protected “legitimate interests” include customer relations or goodwill, trade secrets and confidential business information.  The scope and duration of the restriction of competition is also relevant in determining whether it goes beyond simply protecting the legitimate interests of employers. What is appropriate over time and overall is generally sensitive to the facts and determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts. Therefore, a non-competitive agreement lasting only one year would be more likely to be enforced by a court, while a five-year agreement would probably not be implemented. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that an employment restriction, which geographically exceeds the place where the employer generally operates, is unlikely to apply.