Suicide Girls’ Model Contracts: Invalid

There are provisions of contracts referred to as “non competition clauses.” In many instances, producers or employers will attempt to narrowly define what the talent or employee can or cannot do when he / she is not working for that particular employer. In many instances, such clauses are invalid. But this is not always the case, and such a discussion is beyond the scope of this posting. In this instance,

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has voided Suicide Girls’ modeling contracts, ruling that their exclusivity terms are too broad to legally keep models from doing outside modeling work. (Source)

In many instances, those wishing to challenge the provisions will argue that such restrictions are against public policy. But it looks like here that the judge felt the competition provisions were too broad to be enforceable.

Comments:

  1. I have never signed a noncompete agreement, but it makes sense that it should be reasonable for both parties. A company would want to protect their trade secrets while the employee needs some ability to find work in the same industry in which they are trained. Thanks to Kathy, I now know that a certain geographical area can be included in the terms of the noncompete agreement also.

    Comment by Jennifer Augustine on April 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  2. Just as informational purposes… I work in the employment law group for a large corporation which covers the U.S. and 48 countries globally. The non-competition clause for our business is extremely important as we need to protect our product is very defined and limited. We enforce the non-competition clause in all our U.S. employment contracts and have been very successful. However, the non-competition clause enforceability in countries outside the U.S. is very different. Courts typically do not agree and are less likely to enforce non-competition clauses. Local laws in countries outside the U.S. are definitely designed to protect the employee much more than the U.S.

    Comment by Jeri Harms on April 11, 2008 at 8:30 am

  3. When you are not currently working for your former employer, you still need to work. So it sounds like the modeling contracts need to be revised and specify what exactly the former models are allowed to do and what not to do. I’m sure the models are pleased that the judge ruled in their favor.

    Comment by Jennifer Mackall on April 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Submit a comment: