In addition, the Court found that the term «direct or indirect» was not unreasonable or excessive in the non-competition clause under Virginia law. The word «indirectly» is not in itself intended for the application of a non-compete clause in Virginia. In other words, as the Court said, «the family doctor cannot indirectly do what is directly prohibited.» (a) enter into a contract as a subcontractor with Accenture, LLP and DLA to provide the same support or support that Preferred Accenture, LLP and/or DLA offers, and to support the DLA Business System Modernization program. This case reminds us that it is important for Virginia employers to be careful and thoughtful about the specific language used in their non-competitive, unpaid and other restrictive agreements and to ensure that the language is not broader than necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Of course, in this case, they were independent contractors and not collaborators. Had the defendants been employees who would have more than only participated in the discrete duties of their consulting contracts, the Tribunal would have tolerated a broader competitive inability provision. Nevertheless, employers should ensure that restrictive alliances are devised in demanding language that cannot be interpreted hypothetically. For example, in Virginia and in a growing number of states, if a non-compete agreement could be used to prohibit someone from working in any function for another company, even if that ability is not competitive with the previous employer or does not refer to the worker`s work for the previous employer, it may be vulnerable to be questionable. Virginia employers should take this opportunity to review their restrictive agreements to assess their suitability and applicability. GP preferred to sue GP at Fairfax Court for breach of contract. The case goes to a bank trial.
The judge found that GP «clearly violated» the non-compete contract «when he entered into a contract with Accenture for support services for the DLA business system modernization program. It is interesting to note that the Court provided the Metis Group with some guidance on the implementation of future non-competition and non-acquisition agreements with similar real circumstances.