Probably not. Most courts have held that an employer engaged in illegal activity resulting in the departure of a worker cannot impose a non-compete agreement against the worker who has left the country for that reason. Non-compete clauses are often more restrictive for mid- to upper-level workers, but even a beginner may suffer from signing a largely restrictive contract and should consider negotiating a shrinkage. Whether it is legal for your employer to refuse you or to fire you from a job, you depend on the facts of each case and will vary from state to state, depending on the laws of each state. It may also depend on the adequacy of the proposed federal state not to compete. A new law prohibits high-tech companies, but only those companies in Hawaii, from requiring their employees to enter into “non-competitive” and “non-favourable” agreements as a precondition for employment. The new law, Law 158, came into force on July 1, 2015.  In France, NCCs must be limited in time to a maximum of two years and to a region in which the worker`s new work can reasonably be considered competitive. The area can be a city or the whole country depending on the circumstances. The employer must pay financial compensation, usually 30 per cent of the previous salary.  A NCC should not unduly restrict the worker`s ability to find a new job. The NCCs are enforceable, but any CNC concluded after May 10, 2016 must not be extended for more than one year.
  For example, the Ohio Supreme Court in Ohio ruled that, in the case of a willing employee, maintaining employment was sufficient for the agreement to be applicable. As a general rule, smes or established professionals should work with a lawyer to adapt the non-competition agreement so that it does not put too much pressure on their professional future. Under Section 27 of the Contracts Act of 1872, any agreement that prevents a person from practising a legitimate occupation, commercial or commercial activity is null and void.  However, Pakistani courts have in the past made decisions in favour of such restrictive covenants, as the restrictions are “reasonable”.  The definition of “appropriate” depends on the time, geographic location and designation of the worker. In the case of Exide Pakistan Limited v. Abdul Wadood, 2008 CLD 1258 (Karachi), the High Court of Sindh found that the adequacy of the clause would vary from case to case and depended mainly on the duration and extent of the geographical area Already in Von Dyer`s in 1414, the English Common Law decided not to enforce the non-competition clauses. because they have kept themselves as trade restrictions.  This prohibition remained unchanged until 1621, when a restriction limited to a given geographical site was established as an exception to the previously absolute rule.