Source: https://www.omtrial.com/blog/competing-with-non-compete-provisions
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:53:38+00:00

Document:
You are married to your job. You are what you do. There is truth to the idea that we all identify ourselves with the profession we have chosen. So, what happens when someone tries to limit your ability to do that job? Most often, these limitations are presented in the form of a non-compete clause in a contract.
Colorado does not look favorably on restricting competition or a person’s ability to work, and our legislature enacted law that defines very narrow exceptions to the general rule that covenants not to compete are void. Colorado Revised Statute Section 8-2-113 states that a contractual restriction on a person’s ability to perform “skilled or unskilled labor for any employer” is automatically unenforceable unless it falls into one of four categories.
4. One tied to officers, executive and management personnel, and employees who act as professional staff to executive and management personnel.
An employer or franchisor may prohibit an employee’s or franchisee’s use of trade secrets following termination of the relationship. For a covenant not to compete to fall within the trade secret exception in the statute, the restriction must specifically protect trade secrets and limit the scope to only protect those trade secrets, meaning it should not encompass data or processes that are not trade secrets.vi A trade secret may include “scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other information relating to any business or profession” that is kept secret and provides for some advantage over a competitor.vii Solely by way of example, trade secrets may include a product design, client list, or company manual that is not available to, accessible by, or readily ascertainable to the public at large.
Buyers and sellers, as well as employees and employers are advised to consider the permissible restrictions on competition and define the limited scope necessary to protect the interests involved in order to assess the enforceability of such provision.
i. Nat'l Graphics Co. v. Dilley, 681 P.2d 546, 547 (Colo. App. 1984); Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733, 736 (Colo. App. 2006), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 15, 2007).
iii. Id. at 736-37; Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133, 1138 (Colo. App. 2008); Nat'l Propane Corp. v. Miller, 18 P.3d 782, 786 (Colo. App. 2000).
iv. Id. at 736; Nat’l Propane, 18 P.3d at 787-88.
v. Nat’l Propane, 18 P.3d at 786.
vi. Gold Messenger, Inc. v. McGuay, 937 P.2d 907, 910 (Colo. App. 1997).
viii. DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 224 P.3d 362 (Colo. App. 2009); Reed Mill, supra.
x. Colo. Supply Co., Inc. v. Stewart, 797 P.2d 1303 (Colo. App. 1990).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.