Companies spend time and money training employees; in the case of a merger or acquisition, they spend resources such as cash, stock, and debt. It makes sense, then, that they do not want an employee to take the expertise the company underwrote to a competitor. Thus, employment contracts will often include non-compete clauses—sometimes known as covenants not to compete—which state that the employee cannot move to a competitor for a certain period of time. Though not all employees have the heightened fiduciary duty of board members and officers, they frequently have signed agreements that, at least on paper, restrict their employment mobility. Not only have officers and board members often signed such agreements as well, but they also have fiduciary duties further restricting their new employment plans. In decades of teaching courses in the legal environment of business as well as in business ethics, no topic flummoxes students more than this one. After all, in a free country, a person should be able to work where they wish, right? How can such restrictions be fair? Legally and ethically, this is a complicated area and one in which the old lawyer’s answer—it depends—is true. This article provides some parameters for employees and employers to know when fiduciary duty precludes certain employees from moving to a new company, including when those are legal in what ways they are fair.

公司花费时间和金钱培训员工；在合并或收购的情况下，他们会花费现金、股票和债务等资源。因此，他们不希望员工将公司承保的专业知识带给竞争对手是有道理的。因此，雇佣合同通常会包含竞业禁止条款（有时称为不竞争契约），其中规定员工在一定时期内不能转投竞争对手。尽管并非所有员工都对董事会成员和高级职员负有更高的受托责任，但他们经常签署协议，至少在纸面上限制他们的就业流动性。不仅高级职员和董事会成员也经常签署此类协议，而且他们还承担着进一步限制其新就业计划的受托责任。在数十年的商业法律环境和商业道德课程的教学中，没有比这一个更让学生困惑的话题了。毕竟，在一个自由的国家，一个人应该能够在他们愿意的地方工作，对吧？这样的限制怎么可能是公平的？在法律和道德上，这是一个复杂的领域，老律师的回答——视情况而定——是正确的。本文为员工和雇主提供了一些参数，以了解受托责任何时会阻止某些员工转入新公司，包括何时合法，以何种方式公平。这是一个复杂的领域，老律师的回答——视情况而定——是正确的。本文为员工和雇主提供了一些参数，以了解受托责任何时会阻止某些员工转入新公司，包括何时合法，以何种方式公平。这是一个复杂的领域，老律师的回答——视情况而定——是正确的。本文为员工和雇主提供了一些参数，以了解受托责任何时会阻止某些员工转入新公司，包括何时合法，以何种方式公平。