The employees’ right to practice outweighed the right of the employer to keep its clients from following those former employees.

The General Assembly refused to protect a gender-specific condition explicitly, but the Court of Appeals concludes that protection may be implied as an artifact of “sex” and a basis for liability. The way this decision was written seems to open doors for arguments about other gender-specific medical situations that could be alleged as a factual basis for wrongful termination claims.

A non-compete should be tailor-made for your business, the types of employees subject to them, and the goals they are expected to achieve.