entered into with a new employer in a case such as this. The court in Van Steenis did note a distinction between a ease where the prior employment had been at will, as opposed to a set term of years. However, defendant has produced no substantive evidence to this point that Lowry was previously contractually obligated to retain defendant after acquiring Data ReCall. Accordingly, this court finds that continuing employment is sufficient consideration to support the agreement in this case. Finally, defendant argues that the d in this case, a one-year duration appears reasonable. As to geographical limitation, the Walling court held that an unlimited geographical scope is reasonable if the plaintiffs business is sufficiently national and international in scope. Walling, 851 F.Supp. at 847 (<HOLDING>). Lowry services accounts in 48 states and in
holding that both inmates and pretrial detainees can be visually strip searched in the interests of significant and legitimate security interests recognizing that like any market participant plaintiff likely has some legitimate interests tied up in managers  that would support submitting issue of fact as to whether companies were engaged in the same or similar business even if new employer was not a direct competitor of former employer holding unlimited geographical scope can be reasonable if the employer actually has legitimate business interests throughout the world holding that an employee is guilty of misconduct connected with his work when he deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer or when his acts or omissions are of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligations he owes his employer recognizing that employer has notice of limitation when disability manifests itself to the extent that it would be reasonable to infer that her employer actually knew of the disability