No Hawaii Court has published a written decision adopting the doctrine. Clearly, Hawaii employers should not rely on the inevitable disclosure doctrine to protect its trade secrets, but instead should rely on sound business practices and non-compete agreements to protect their trade secrets. Non-compete agreements restrict an individual's ability to compete with a former employer, subject to reasonableness of limitations on time, geography, and kinds of activity that the employee can undertake. A dispute over a covenant not to compete arises usually when a valuable employee of one company pursues employment opportunities with a competitor. The former employer then seeks an injunction prohibiting the employee from working with the competitor until the agreement expires.
Hawaii courts recognize the validity of non-compete agreements.
The employee had signed a covenant not to compete with any of the employer's competitors in Hawaii for the term of the agreement and for three years thereafter. The employee resigned from the company and, within the period of time set forth in the agreement, began to work for a competitor in Hawaii. The employer sued. In determining whether the non-compete provision was lawful, the Court considered whether prohibiting the employee from competing with the former company was reasonable in geographical scope, length of time, and breadth of restriction. A lot has changed since the Traeger decision not the least of which is the reality that an enforcement of a three year covenant not to compete can be the equivalent of a lifetime in the technology industry.