Is Cooks bound to the non-compete agreement that she signed with RRG? Is this non-compete agreement a contract? 
Non-compete agreements are covenants made in the course of employment or contracts of sale of businesses. The signee in the contract agrees not to compete with the current employer. The key goal of these agreements is to limit the rights of employees who sign the agreement. The employees are restricted from doing any business that competes with the current employer within a specific geographic location and for a particular period.

The signing of the non-compete agreement means accepting the terms. The terms include; not competing with the employer or engaging in any business that is similar to that of the current employer, whether as an employee, independent contractor, owner, part owner, investor, and any other kind of competition stated in the agreement (Clarkson & Miller, 2020). In this case, the non-compete agreement is valid as Cooks signed it.

Although the interpretation of non-compete agreements differs from one state to another, courts must examine common factors to determine the genuineness of non-compete Agreements. The courts have the mandate to determine whether the employer's main interest is to protect his interest in the non-compete agreement. It is also significant to understand the geographic scope of the restriction.

The court determines whether the non-compete agreement is fair or bars an employee from making a living. The non-compete agreement duration is also significant in determining how long the contract will be in force. The clauses in the agreement must be analyzed keenly to see whether it provides the employee with compensation or benefits for signing the non-compete agreement. The validity of non-compete clauses varies from one state to another because of the different legislation in place (Epstein, 2006). 

In the case of the sandwich chain Jimmy Johns in New York, the court held that the company's non-compete agreement was invalid as it prevented employees from working in a similar sandwich industry for two years (Whitten, 2016). Thus, an employer must provide legitimate business reasons to justify the enforcement of a non-compete agreement. An employer cannot restrict an employee from utilizing the skills and abilities without good reasons. For example, an employer may block you from going to a competitor if you know its trade secrets that may be used to lure the customers away.

It is a way of the employee protecting himself and having a competitive advantage. The court may find a non-compete agreement enforceable if the employee has inside information that would harm the employer if the information is leaked to competitors. In this particular case, Cooks has no secret information about the company. Cooks was not told about any trade secrets. Hence it is unreasonable to ask her to stay unemployed for ten years and not engage with any companies that directly or indirectly competes with RRG.

The geographic scope is considered reasonable depending on the duration, nature of the work restricted, and consideration (Ford, Notestine, & Richard, 2000). The broad geographic scope may be enforceable if the duration of the restriction is short. However, a broad geographic Scope may be unenforceable if there is a long restriction period.

While examining the geographic scope, the courts will look at the employer's business. In this case, RRG is not perceived to be a large company with branches in different states. The agreement presented to Cooks is ambiguous as it does not give a geographic scope, and the ten-year duration of the restriction is impractical. Generally, courts will not validate a non-compete agreement that prevents an employee from working in an area not dominated by the employer.

A reasonable duration is dependent on the nature of the non-compete agreement and other factors. If the non-compete agreement aims to protect the employer's trade secrets, then a reasonable duration is considered (Emanuel & Rigos, 2007). The court has a mandate to analyze the employer's interest and give realistic time restrictions.

The nature of the work performed determines the reasonable restriction, the employment duration of the employee, any special training or education offered by the employer as a benefit of employment, trade secrets shared with the employee that could harm the employer if shared with the competitor and...…was a breach of the employment contract on the employer's part. Hence the non-compete agreement should be unenforceable (Ella, 2018). 

Is Cooks entitled to make a breach of contract claim against RRG for what Cooks believes is the use of her ideas?

Cook is not entitled to make a breach of contract claim against RRG for the use of her ideas. The employer has the right overall ideas created in a business unless there was a contract stating otherwise. Generally, when employees invent new ideas useful to the employers, such employees are supposed to be compensated for using that idea. Using the employee's idea without compensating the employee is termed unjust enrichment.

However, it is noteworthy that if the employee was hired precisely to come up with the idea or invention, then the employer has full rights to the ideas given. The employee is just doing her duty to develop a better process or product for the business. Cook was tasked with the employer to come up with the ideas, and the assignment was in the course of working; hence she cannot claim the ideas. There was no valid signed contract to prove that the claim; hence it is a challenge proving the same in court.

An idea cannot be safeguarded unless it is patented under patent, copyright, or trademark laws. Ideas are not protected under intellectual property law. If the idea is not patented, one can use a non-disclosure agreement to protect the idea. However, it may be a challenge to prove ownership based upon a written non-disclosure agreement. Hence, the odds of obtaining damages from the employer are low.

Conclusion

In summary, the contract was valid at the time of the signing by Cooks. However, the contract was discharged because the employer breached the contract of employment. Cooks is the aggrieved party and is entitled to damages. Also, the employer will be liable for court costs and attorney fees. However, that is dependent on whether Cook's attorney will pray for those damages, and the court is at the discretion to grant the prayer or not.

References

Clarkson, K. W.,…