Yes, but it should only be effective after the date it was signed. IE if you took your employer's clients prior to signing that agreement, then the agreement PROBABLY won't cover those clients... although the employer can sue you for damages, effectively make you pay him for his lost earnings. Although there are no laws against it, other than non-compete agreements, etc "stealing" a client from an employer is frowned upon in the business world.
The IRS may impose one on the employer. The employee has no say or right in this.
NO, he can not. Unless there is an agreement between you and the employer clearly stating that you could be financially responsible for any defects in regards to your job. It is up to your employer to properly train you, so you can perform your job adequately.
A constraint clause is not required when a statement or action does not impose limitations or conditions on the subject matter. For instance, in a simple declarative sentence that conveys a fact or opinion without any qualifying conditions, a constraint clause is unnecessary. Additionally, in informal contexts or when the intent is clear without elaboration, omitting a constraint clause can enhance clarity and conciseness.
No, a state cannot impose an import tax on goods entering from another state due to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from enacting laws that interfere with interstate commerce. This clause ensures that trade between states remains free and unencumbered by individual state tariffs or taxes. However, states can impose sales taxes on goods sold within their borders, but these taxes cannot be applied to interstate imports.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Opponents of environmental regulations argue that such restrictions effectively diminish property value or limit its use, constituting a "taking." They contend that property owners should be compensated for these lost rights, as the regulations can impose significant economic burdens. Consequently, the Takings Clause is often invoked in legal challenges against regulatory measures perceived to infringe on property rights.
Probably, but you should check with the policies and procedures that are in place. One problem is that the employer will place the write-up in your file with an indication that you refused to sign. Another option will be to write a response to the employer, and ask to have your response placed in your file as well. Your employer will probably be ok honoring your request.
"Impose to" is not idiomatic English. You can say "impose on" in a sentence such as "I hate to impose on you, but do you happen to have any Grey Poupon?"
Impose is a verb.
I do not seek to impose my will on you. How long did the jury deliberate to impose their sentence?
Employers are solely responsible for paying certain taxes, including the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax, which funds unemployment benefits. Additionally, they pay the employer's portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are part of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Some states may also impose specific employer-only taxes, such as state unemployment taxes.
To impose countervention is to penalize those who have penalized you.
I think a close antonym for impose would be "respect".