In the case of Islam, it was an argument between a casino employee and his former employer. The employee, who worked as a host casino for the former employer, entered into an agreement with the former employer to work for one (1) year after the end of his employment with the former employer for another gambling institution within 150 miles of the former employer. After leaving the Old Employer, the worker began working as the casino host for a new employer within the 150-mile radius prohibited. The former employer sued the worker to prevent his employment with the new employer. The first instance ruled in favour of the employer and rejected the summary stay application and found that, while employment contracts should generally be interpreted as a delimitation and application of workers` rights, this principle cannot be extended to such a level that ambiguities can be found in the absence of an agreement. The first instance found that the termination clause was clear, enforceable without cause, and further removed the basic termination clause as a separate and distinct provision of the contract. In light of this decision, employers are well advised to review their employment contracts to ensure compliance with employment standards. When employment contracts need to be updated or revised for existing workers, employers must also remember that consideration (i.e. value) must be given to the worker to ensure that his consent to adhere to the new terms of employment is valid and enforceable.
The first instance distinguished the case law relating to the disassociability provisions invoked by the worker and found that the employer had not attempted, in this case, to recall or remedy in any way the inoperative dismissal clause. On the contrary, it relied on and attempted to enforce an end-of-term clause in force under the terms on which the parties had agreed. The first instance found that the time limit clause was valid without reason at the time the contract was concluded and remained valid after the end of the contract. The Court found that the prohibition of a non-compete clause for all types of employment of a gambling facility within 150 miles of the former employer was excessive, since such a prohibition went beyond what was necessary to protect the interests of the former employer. The Court also found that such a ban severely restricted the worker`s ability to gain employment. The Court of Justice stated that the whole agreement was not applicable. The employee was a 42-year-old sales manager with a total annual income of only $200,000.