As some of you may remember, at this time a year ago, the most-read thread was "The Mike Arthur Situation," which was started by a friend of Mike's who was outraged by the unprofessional behavior of the NJRG, who banned him (and his entire family) for bringing the USA Team Coach with him to the gym.

A year later, and the names have changed, but the behavior is the same. The owner of the NJRG, Howard Bernstein, has threatened legal action against The Gravity Vault for hiring Matt Stark as a setter. Apparently, as a condition of Matt's employment, he was required to sign a contract that contained a no-compete agreement which essentially prohibited him from working at any entity that owned or operated a climbing facility within 25 miles of the NJRG. According to Mapquest, the Gravity Vault is 24.9 miles from the NJRG(this is how many miles a car would drive, not as the crow would fly).

The contract expired on Aug 31st 2003; however, the NJRG believes the no-compete clause extends beyond the term of the contract to the last day of Matt's employment and will remain so in effect until July of 2006. Howard Bernstein is maliciously trying to prevent Matt from earning a living as a setter and to eliminate the Gravity Vault as competition.

Legally, a covenant not to compete is only viable if it protects a “legitimate employers interest” which usually includes proprietary information, confidential information, trade secrets, etc. A restraint against competition is invalid when its sole purpose is to prevent competition since it does not protect any legitimate interest (other than Howard Bernstein's bank account).

If you like having another climbing option in northern NJ, do something. If you believe the NJRG is treating Matt Stark unfairly, DO SOMETHING. Send an email (info@njrockgym). Call the NJRG at 973-439-9860. Call Howard Bernstein directly at 732-249-6422 and tell him what you think of this. Tell every other climber about this. Cross-post this everywhere.

Actually, that is precisely what a no compete clause is for. It's so a worker can't go and use his skills at another facility which might lead to decreased revenue for the original employer. Sounds like the owner is being petty, but the owner, IMHO, has every right too. Just goes to show you need to watch everything you sign.

Oh, what s---. A covenant not to compete -- for a gym epmployee? This borders on malicious prosecution. I hope the judge sticks it to the gym owner.

Jay

I haven't always gotten your humor, but I hoep this is a joke!

Malicious prosecution has no application to this matter. Malicious prosecution requires action by the "state".

The employee...was no doubt privy to proprietary information of the past employers, information that could aid a future competitor....

Maybe that's true in some jurisdictions, but in general, malicious prosecution can refer to either civil or criminal procedings, and the "state" need not be the plaintiff. See for instance: http://dictionary.law.com/...99&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Specific to New Jersey: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/313.htm

Jay

Route setting is a skill, is it not? Otherwise both gyms would hire unskilled laborers to set routes.

It is my understanding that covenants not to compete are intended to keep people from competing in a similar business, in a limited area, for a limited period of time.

But then there is the issue of, if the employee signed the agreement willingly, however unenforceable that agreement may be, shouldn't he keep his word?

Jay, thanks for the legal commentary. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is, under the circumstances, you are on the mark.

Just avoid the entire State of New Jersey.