competing business interests. See Solari, supra, 55 N.J. at 576, 264 A.2d 53. At this early stage of the litigation, that is enough to support plaintiffs claim to a viable cause of action. We recognize that no New Jersey case has previously addressed whether a CEPA or Pierce claim may arise in the context of an employee’s refusal to sign a noncompete clause. But, for the reasons expressed, we find that New Jersey’s strong prohibition against restraint of trade, and against unduly burdening employees by restricting their right to engage in their chosen field of employment, establishes the public policy necessary to support a CEPA and Pierce common-law cause of action. See D’Sa v. Playhut, Inc., 85 Cal.App.4th 927, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 497 (2000), review denied (Mai-. 21, 2001) (<HOLDING>). IV In rendering its decision, the Law
holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy holding that termination is an adverse employment action