Also known as: not harm the public · harmless to the public · harmless to public · public safety
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A condition for enforcing a restrictive covenant in a professional employment agreement. The covenant must leave the public with adequate access to the restricted services and must not otherwise injure public welfare.
Nigel Nelson, a surgeon, signed a two-year, fifteen-mile noncompete with his former practice. After leaving, he opened a clinic just outside the radius. Patients in the area continued to have multiple surgical options. The court enforced the covenant because it satisfied the not-harmful-to-the-public requirement.
Noah Nakamura was the only pediatric oncologist within fifty miles of a rural county. His employment agreement contained a broad noncompete. After he announced plans to open an independent clinic, the court refused to enforce the covenant. The restriction would have left the public without timely access to specialized care.
Nadia Novak, an orthopedic surgeon, left Northstar Logistics' medical group under a three-year noncompete. Several other orthopedic practices already served the same metropolitan area. The court upheld the covenant because enforcement would not reduce public access to orthopedic services.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nestor Navarro was the sole board-certified radiologist in a remote region. His former employer sought to enforce a five-year, thirty-mile noncompete. The court declined enforcement because patients would lose ready access to diagnostic imaging.
Nina Nielsen, a dermatologist, left Nobel Dynamics under a two-year noncompete limited to one county. Numerous other dermatologists practiced in the same county. The court enforced the covenant because the public retained ample access to skin-care services.
Nicholas Nunez was the only trauma surgeon on call for a regional hospital. His employment contract contained a broad geographic noncompete. The court refused enforcement because the restriction would have endangered public access to emergency surgical care.
Courts examine whether enforcement would leave the public without reasonable access to needed professional services, especially in underserved areas. They also consider the number of other providers available and the scope of the restriction. If the covenant would create a shortage of care, it fails this requirement.
Supporting sources
The requirement is stated most explicitly for physicians because their services directly affect public health. Courts have applied analogous public-interest analysis to other licensed professionals whose absence would harm the community.
Supporting sources
A large geographic restriction is more likely to harm the public when few alternative providers exist in that area. A narrow restriction is less likely to cause harm when multiple providers remain available.
Supporting sources
…The police agencies—all the way from municipal and state forces to the federal bureaus—are responsible for law enforcement and public safety in this country. I am proud of their efforts, which in my view are not fairly characterized by the Court's opinion. I The ipse dixit of the majority has no support in our cases.…