The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) set aside the court and ruled that an injunction was not appropriate because the non-invitation agreement was contrary to Oklahoma law and public policy. In particular, COCA has decided that the mere „indirect“ removal of the non-appeal agreement does not make the non-appeal agreement enforceable. The court justified this decision by the fact that autry, as written, prohibits clients with whom she worked at Acosta, but that she was not a current client and was no longer a client for some time, to prevent the solicitation of „established clients“. A: Most of the time, an employer will submit to key workers a non-compete agreement that will allow the employer to use the skills and information it has learned during its employment to help a future employer obtain a market advantage. The employer protects itself against the departure of a worker to greener pastures and the granting of a competitive advantage to his new employer. Simply put, the purpose of a non-compete agreement is to prohibit a former employee from working for a competitor. The next part of this document, „2. Non-Compete/Nondisclosure,“ provides the preparer with a method to apply only restrictions or restrictions relevant to the recipient. The Oklahoma State Law applies only to a recipient who directly abuses a company`s private information, thereby sabotaging its ability to compete in its market. There will be several topics for discussion in „business practices,“ „customers/customers,“ „general competitors,“ „specific competitors“) and „collaborators.“ Each subject contains a coerc box and a descriptive statement of the restrictions or restrictions imposed if and only when the coercive box is activated. Any restrictions can only be imposed if there is a deliberate intention to abuse company information to cripple their competitiveness. The court granted the company`s request for an ORR and found that Acosta would be likely to prevail over the case of its claims. He decided that Autry should be prohibited from using confidential Acosta information and from trying to hire Acosta employees.
The relevant part of the TRO for Autry`s appeal was to prohibit him from „directly“ requesting certain Acosta customers who were on a client list from 2016. The Tribunal justified this decision by the fact that it could remove the word „indirectly“ from Autry`s non-invitation agreement and that it was applicable. Autry appealed this part of the ORR. In short, a former employee may face his or her former employer. However, the former employee cannot do so by using the employer`s confidential information or by directly appealing to the former employer`s established clients.