north pacific one for company lest one testified along the lines of the court has just mentioned it was a very standard promotion process i have an assistant manager i want to make him or her a manager in that position they will get a client i want to be able to protect it and that was one aspect of advancement that was put before the legislature but the second one is the one that we're dealing with here north pacific one that was not concerned with an actual commotion with the  legislative history except for informational purposes correct so in other words let's just say you had any promotion if you sign an agreement after a promotion that forced would be in violation of the statute because  there also may be periods prior to the promotion from which it would also be improper to execute an employee agreement on competition agreement but at the outside certainly promotion it would be improper would you agree with that after a promotion would clearly be an improper tarn so therefore the district court statement in that regard is not accurate the question is then in this case you know all the facts lead to a conclusion that there was an advancement and at what point do we need you know well that's right because that's the fact that he says help help us understand your perspective on this because i'm reading the opinion in standing but i'm trying to figure out whether this guy got  originally ask you what is the and what is the meaning of a parking statute because the question that is i'm struggling with here is does the employer and i've read that same organ statutes the construction of at the very moment in time someone could make a judgment that he had moved beyond what he was before that he  employees there may be construed that way you want now to read another bright line test if the fact is that the person is getting low paying increased nothing but has been given confidential information information being given for training and employee want to know that at that moment it would be protected the interesting thing is it's not just as it might appear it's no more different at the end of the day than trade secret protection under the common law every employer impunity you as an employee and virtually well virtually every state whether or not they have the in from trade secrets act so it's it's different it seems to me because here are the concerns the real concern is if you want to holding people hostage to keep their job they have their job and then they say oh you know what we've now gotten a very spiffed up the h r department and we're going to make everybody sign these agreements and that's when employees rightfully called for al so if you go back that that's really what prompted a lot of this discussion my concern is that i'm not sure you need a bright line if you have a confidentiality agreement as he account manager and and there's no statute that requires that a confidentiality agreement be entered into before you get a promotion and of course the the common law that come along plies an obligation as a matter of law to maintain the confidences of the employer whether or not he signed such an agreement sort of the circumstances we had here or that mr mccarthy was exposed to some information which which as was testified didn't do anything different after that that was the poor of course the formal fortunately responsible for the sales forecast that was was performed now keep you talking about something the current six years before so mr ford didn't have a very good recollection of what he may have with if i understand the question what you're doing there you've got somebody who is ultimately responsible for the job working with the person the and that person to become any position to be able to do the job mccarthy rather there was a formal process that had to gone through at night which includes two missions who to mr peterson the superior that was mark doing and also it had to be submitted to human resources for approval and there was a question in fact were responsible are you saying that during this interim period you actually didn't have any responsibilities he was not he was not made responsible for that he was like a shadow person job title was involved here and there's no dispute about that so those things are certainly relevant here i didn't really i don't really reach you judge marsh is cast as being this kind of test that might apply to every case for example in the in the knowledge he gives access to some confidential information and he does a few of these duties suppose that is a bona fide advancement does that mean that what happened on april won here when he when he actually got the promotion got that raise got the changing job title and it took place in april one of the ample evidence to show that's when that occurred and i think we have to thank  yet until he gets motion because you're not going to be doing their job well except for the things that constitute an advancement have the promotion has not and actually your question is a good one your honor because it brings into bear another focus of the statute which is surprise you've got a guy who's been announced doing the duties in public with clients looking at confidential information interacting with people who used to be his peers but he's now their boss and he's presented a month later with a contract with e s p say you know what surprised that he was going to be asked for the hiring manager who made the job offer to him testify that he had no idea he had never talked about a non compete with him no one else to talk with him about a non competing and the first time deal that was when it showed up on his desk for he had signed one before that's correct and the statute requires not that there be some general understanding of use the statute requires that there be an agreement in place and you're absolutely right your honor this is a high risk