Using an analytical framework, corresponding to that of the Alabama courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in consultants & Designers, Inc. v. Butler Service Group, Inc., 720 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir.1983) considered a similar restrictive agreement in a case that concerned the same sector of temporary work as that in question. In a notice that discusses in detail the nature of the industry and the risk of disintermediation by “job buyers,” eleventh Circuit maintained a restrictive agreement preventing an employee from terminating their employment relationship with TSF for a period of 90 days and accepting direct employment with TSF`s client. Like the agreement at issue in the present case, the restrictive agreement concluded in Butler Service Group provided that the worker could not accept employment `directly or indirectly` at the `specific customer workplace where [TSF] had placed the employee`. When setting aside the judgment of a lower court that had refused to impose the Bund, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the TSF had a protective interest as an intermediary: I used Aerotek to look for a job that they worked best they could to find me, one that you have excellent customer service 2. Burton claims that he was in fact an employee of Enterprise Solutions. He makes this claim based on a statement from a Storage Technologies executive, who said that at the time he was interviewing Burton, it was his “assumption that [Burton] would work for Enterprise Solutions, which was a subcontractor of [Storage Technologies] for resources and recruitment.” Burton did not, however, have an employment contract with Enterprise Solutions and the same manager also stated that he did not know whether Enterprise Solutions had entered into a contract with another party to provide Burton as an employee. Storage Technologies may have a provision in its contract with Enterprise Solutions that would allow Storage Technologies to recruit staff just after a period of six months without additional human resources intermediary fees. However, such an agreement would only be concluded between Storage Technologies and Enterprise Solutions. Neither Aerotek nor Burton are parties to such an agreement; the relationship between Aerotek and Burton is governed by the contract between them. The fact that Storage Technologies can hire Burton without paying additional fees to Enterprise Solutions does not affect Burton`s commitment in its contract with its employer Aerotek if it accepts direct employment at the facility where Aerotek was responsible for the intermediation. Aerotek customers typically need highly qualified personnel for periods ranging from a few days to a few years.
When Aerotek is notified of a need, aerotek (i) conducts a search for candidates with the required skills, (ii) recruits these individuals, iii) interviews them internally, (iv) conducts reference examinations, v) conducts substantive examinations, (vi) has the drug tested by potential staff and (vii) provides its client with a candidate`s curriculum vitae and reports on its reference examinations. he is a candidate for consideration of the client. . . .