Posted by Welp on April 10, 2009 at 11:27:07:
In Reply to: Re: Steve Harvey says V103 change that bumped Tom Joyner was Clear Channel's doing, not his posted by Guaranteed Not To Be Trey on April 10, 2009 at 11:25:44:
It has nothing to do with a non-compete. There's a contract in place. He (or his syndicator I should say) is still being "paid" (whether it's in cash or barter) for his services even though those services are not being rendered. It's like how Eddie & Jobo, Steve Dahl are just sitting around and doing nothing.
: I say this knowing that a "no-compete" clause must be involved. I can't figure out why a no-compete can be enforced if the company removed you for reasons other than insubordination. If they chose to take you off-and you did nothing wrong to warrant removal-then the clause should be deemed void. They opted to make a change, not the employee. If the employee decided to walk, then I can see the enforcement of the clause. This was not the case, however.
: I would guess that Joyner is still being paid by CC as a result of his contract. Still, he should be able to shop himself around without any strings attached.
: I could be wrong on this whole thing, but I had to question it after reading that section of Rosenthal's story. It didn't make sense to me.