Answer the 2 questions

DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis- com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/api/permalink/0662e8d7-5868-4877-a028- 3ae9a3249480/?context=1516831 Once you have read and reviewed the case scenario, respond to the following questions: 1. Discuss the legal implications for employers and employees for requiring employees to sign noncompete agreements. What factors did the court consider in making its decision? Compare and contrast Ohio and Nebraska's positions on noncompete clauses. 2. Which state's laws support ethical reasoning in the resolution of this case? Your response should be a minimum of two pages in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must beDCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis- com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/api/permalink/0662e8d7-5868-4877-a028- 3ae9a3249480/?context=1516831 Once you have read and reviewed the case scenario, respond to the following questions: 1. Discuss the legal implications for employers and employees for requiring employees to sign noncompete agreements. What factors did the court consider in making its decision? Compare and contrast Ohio and Nebraska's positions on noncompete clauses. 2. Which state's laws support ethical reasoning in the resolution of this case?DCS Sanitation Management v. Castillo, 435 F.3d 892, (8th Cir. 2006). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis- com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/api/permalink/0662e8d7-5868-4877-a028- 3ae9a3249480/?context=1516831 Once you have read and reviewed the case scenario, respond to the following questions: 1. Discuss the legal implications for employers and employees for requiring employees to sign noncompete agreements. What factors did the court consider in making its decision? Compare and contrast Ohio and Nebraska's positions on noncompete clauses. 2. Which state's laws support ethical reasoning in the resolution of this case