If an injunction is issued by the court, it is an action that may prevent you from working as a worker. It can cause you to lose your ability to be used in violation of the federal state to not compete for the period that the court sets up. It may take months or years for the court to make a final decision on whether the federal state that is not in competition, which the worker has signed, is effectively enforceable or not. Of course, from a practical point of view, most employees cannot wait months or years without the ability to earn a living, so the T.R.O. hearing is effective study in most cases. Third, in order to impose a NCC, a complainant must demonstrate that the NCC is reasonable from the point of view of sound public policy. Virginia is not in favour of employment restrictions and, therefore, NCCs are generally maintained against public policy, unless they are strict, as listed above. In Virginia, a CNC does not violate public policy if its restrictions do not create a monopoly on the services offered by the employer or create a lack of skills offered by the employee.  Nor does it mean that all non-competition agreements will be implemented simply because a state in general implements these agreements.
Any agreement could continue to be invalidated if a court finds that the restrictions imposed are not reasonable. Courts are often not forced to be subject to a non-competition clause when the duration of competition is too long, when the geographical scope in which the worker is prevented from working is too broad, or when the types of work bans are too broad. One of the major court decisions that discuss the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. of 1998 In Hunter, a Maryland company required its Maryland-based employee to accept a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. A Maryland employee then went to work for a competitor in California.
When the new California employer sued in the California State Court to have the Confederacy invalidated from not competing, the California court agreed and ruled that the California non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable. Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Act reflects a “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire employees of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers looking for work in California. [Citation required] For doctors, that practically means the question: how specialized are you and how many of you are in this community? If you are one of 300 pediatricians who practice in your city, it is unlikely that the public will be harmed if you will have to stay on the bench for a year because of a non-compete clause.