As a CFI would you sign this??
 

i am looking for some advise and opinions on this.

My current employer where I CFi is asking for all of us to sign this contractor agreement. i understand the need for most of it but what gets me is the employment portion. Would any of you sign this????


(b) Non-Competition. At no time during CFI’s engagement or within the period of one year following the termination thereof, whether such termination is voluntary or involuntary or with or without cause, will CFI, except as otherwise consented to or approved by the Company in writing, directly or indirectly own, manage, control or participate in the ownership, management or control of, or be employed or engaged by or otherwise affiliated or associated as a consultant, independent contractor or otherwise with, any other corporation, partnership, proprietorship, firm, association or other business entity or otherwise engage in any business that is engaged in any manner in, or otherwise competes with, the business of the Company or any of the Company’s subsidiaries or other affiliates in or within the State of Ohio.

Do you want to CFI for these people and work for Wendy's on the side? No problem

Do you want to CFI for these people and instruct for another institution on the side? Tough luck

What are your goals at this point? I don't think CFI'ing for these people while flying boxes on the side should go against this contract, but I'm not that experienced when it comes to these intricacies.

No.

[armchair lawyer]
If you are already employed and they ask you to sign that "or else" then they would be breaking the law by forcing you to sign a contract under duress (threat of loss of job).

If you are staring out on a new conract, then it's up to you if you want the job under those conditions or not.
[/armchair lawyer]

Are you already employed there? how long?

The problem with this is that i just recently moved about 60 miles away from that place, but I like the place and people so I would propably do it until i get a flying job. But what if they fire me for what ever reason! then what?

I just find this unnecesary and a little of an overkill.


I"ve been a CFI over there for over 2 years now, and they just presented it to me.

Thanks

The non-compete clause is no big deal, that's reasonable...it's the one-year post-employment clause that is out of line.

If you are already employed there, they probably cannot force you to sign it. But they might find an excuse to fire you (or just stop using you if you are a "contractor").

Check with a local lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the answer will be go ahead and sign it to keep the peace with your employer. If it ever becomes an issue, I'm sure a lawyer will tell you that it's null and void under duress (but ask the lawyer anyway).

You might ask them to line out the involuntary termination clause...that''s totally unreasonable and they should know it.

Well, I think you may be out of luck on this one (see below). I retract my previous comment.
I would ask to renegotiate the terms of the non compete to be very specific with regard to your job there. And try to get rid of the 1 year after clause.

If you were only prevented from CFI'ing somewhere else while working there, that would be reasonable.

If they think you are a valuable CFI, and you could work somewhere else right now, then let them know they will lose you over this agreement as written. Try not to burn any bridges.


My Employment Lawyer - Non-competition Agreements in Ohio - History and Law

"In Lake Land Empl. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 101 Ohio St. 3d 242, 245-246 (Ohio 2004), however, the Ohio Supreme Court held that continued at-will employment was sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. The Court viewed presentation of a noncompetition agreement by an employer to an at-will employee as, in effect, a proposal to renegotiate the terms of the parties' at-will employment. As a result, an employer can require non-competition agreements from all of its employees and can terminate, without legal liability, those employees who refuse to sign."

I bet anything they wouldn't come after you for damages. The lawyer fees alone would be worth the claim. And if they did I would drag the case out as long as possible. I bet you could keep that out of a court room for 1-3 years if you played your cards right. What possible damage you you possibly be liable for? I would sign it and tell them to sue you when you find another job. You should dare them to sue you. I bet they are all bark and no bite. Even if you were found liable what money could you possibly have being a poor CFI? Wost case scenario is they would file a judgment and I would take many years for them to get their $2 claim against you.

HELL NO. In some states non-compete clauses are illegal and the rest take a very very stringent view of what is "conscionable" and what isn't. This would certainly be a candidate for being so extremely restrictive towards your ability to practice your "trade" and make a living that its almost a joke. If you need to keep the peace, sign it and let them try to find a lawyer willing to stand in front of a judge. Not sure how many would want to tackle the numerous organizations that would most likely be interested in your side.

He won't. Depending on the state, he may tell you that these types of restrictions are unenforceable altogether, that they may be challenged as unnecessarily restrictive because of the size of the area or time time involved or for other reasons that are specific to that state's law.

But employment restrictions of this type are common enough that "duress" would be the weakest position to take. No one's forcing you to take the job. Might as well sue for more pay since, after all, wasn't it the same "duress" that led you to take the pay you are receiving rather than the higher pay you really wanted?

Personally, I think this particular restriction is a bit over-broad (for example, if there's no business because they don't market and they lay you off, you can't go to the successful school 10 miles away and get a job) . But that's just me and I know nothing about employment law in Ohio.

If you're really concerned about it, speak to a lawyer. It's usually a lot cheaper to get advice ahead of time than have to deal with consequences after the fact.

He is already employed by the company asking him to sign the agreement (for two years). If he refuses and gets fired for that reason I think he would prevail. Different scenario than a new-hire.

But it looks like Ohio is special (see above post), and has precedent allowing this sort of thing. That's why the company has the cajones to even propose such a thing. Most other states would be different though.

Sign it then forget about it

No - there's really no need to sign that if you're a contractor. Non-compete clause may be worked out... I wouldn't sign anything with that wording (one year) that didn't explicitly guarantee you an out in the form of compensation, etc. You're not an employee of that company - as a contractor you retain a certain amount of autonomy. I don't see what the benefit is for you in signing it.

Are they offering some sort of great pay package? Also IMHO you should consider countering and editing the contract as you see fit.

Just look at the implications of the contract should the company not have any business for a couple months and/or contract too many CFIs at the same time.

What exactly is the reasoning for them behind the 1 year policy?

Ohio isn't special at all in the "continued employment supports the new promise" piece. I'd take an educated guess that most states follow the "continued employment" rule exactly as quoted where employment is at-will.

Of course that still begs the questions (a) whether Ohio permits this kind of restriction for someone in a CFI position and (b) if it does, would it consider this restriction reasonable as to both time and geographic area.

Only an attorney familiar with Ohio employment law and the nature of the school's operation can give an opinion on that with any degree of reliability.

Looks like somone got a job with American Flyers.

I seriously doubt it. Could you force an employee to sign some minor, harmless agreement, such as monitoring company email and other info systems? Probably.

But a major game-changer like a retroactive post-employment non-compete? Pretty far over the top.

Right...The binding non-compete should terminate when the employment contract terminates. There's no reason for a post employment contract - it's not like you're working on top-secret work or anything.

You're right. But that's a "reasonableness of restriction" issue, not a "continued employment supports new promise" issue.

On the latter, as the Ohio Court recognized in reaching its decision
=========================
Jurisdictions throughout the country are split on the issue presented by the certified question. See, generally, Annotation, Sufficiency of Consideration for Employee's Covenant Not to Compete, Entered into after Inception of Employment (1973), 51 A.L.R.3d 825. As summarized by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, "cases which have held that continued employment is not a sufficient consideration stress the fact that an employee frequently has no bargaining power once he is employed and can easily be coerced. By signing a noncompetition agreement, the employee gets no more from his employer than he already has, and in such cases there is a danger that an employer does not need protection for his investment in the employee but instead seeks to impose barriers to prevent an employee from securing a better job elsewhere. Decisions in which continued employment has been deemed a sufficient consideration for a noncompetition agreement have focused on a variety of factors, including the possibility that the employee would otherwise have been discharged, the employee was actually employed for a substantial time after executing the contract, or the employee received additional compensation or training or was given confidential information after he signed the agreement." (Citations omitted.) Davies & Davies Agency, Inc. v. Davies (Minn. 1980) 298 N.W.2d 127, 130.
=========================

and, btw, nocnik, all is not lost. The Ohio Supreme Court did not find in favor of the employer. It sent the case back down to the lower court to determine whether the restrictions were reasonable.

I was thinking more about the dude that has the "school" down the ramp from a university department that rhymes with Sent Kate or maybe the lady just down 76 across from the blimp hangar that seems to think she's some gift to aviation and her husband who agrees with her.

Either way, not a chance.

-mini

Sign it "Elmer Fudd" ...

Seriously, anyone who would put this in an agreement is just enough of a moron to chase you down. It only costs about $60 bucks to file a lawsuit and you end up paying a bunch to get it tossed.

Make 'em take it out. If they won't, have them sign one that guarantees you X number of students...and pick a nice fat number...and says any decline in students that costs you money, they will pay the difference.

Then stand back as they choke.

Better yet, tell them you want it in the same contract.

I like the way you think, ATC!

-mini

I am not a lawyer, but I do deal with this sort of thing in the technology business a lot. The conclusion: In the State of California non-compete clauses are not enforceable.

Your jurisdiction, however, may vary. And if I have a pre-existing employment relationship with a firm that does not include a noncompete, I wouldn't sign an amended agreement that had such a provision. Just my $0.02.

Soooo.... did you sign it?

Thanks guys for some great advice, I knew that I would get some solid answers if I posted it here.

I ended up signing it but lined thru the employement and 12 months wording and initialed it.

I really hope this doesnt become an issue, I am really not looking to screw anybody and I understand that there are some people that will try to take advantage of you and you have to protect your buisness.


Thanks again.

Mini, that is some funny stuff right there!!! lol:D