I was wondering if the legal argument in suits season 3 episode 14, about getting out of a non-compete in an employment contract, using Michigan court of appeals with a weak link in a non-compete, is valid? If not are there some other ways for someone to get out of a non-compete?
While I cannot provide legal advice or analyze specific cases, I can provide some general information regarding non-compete agreements.

Non-compete agreements are contractual agreements between employers and employees that restrict the employee's ability to work for a competitor or start a competing business after leaving their current job. In some cases, these agreements may be legally enforceable, but in others, they may not hold up in court.

The specific rules governing the enforceability of non-compete agreements vary by jurisdiction and can be influenced by factors such as the scope and duration of the agreement, the type of work involved, and the public policy of the relevant jurisdiction.

In some jurisdictions, including Michigan, courts have ruled that non-compete agreements are only enforceable to the extent that they protect legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets or customer relationships. If a non-compete agreement is overly broad or restrictive, it may be deemed unenforceable.

It's important to note that getting out of a non-compete agreement can be difficult, and the best course of action is often to seek the advice of a qualified legal professional. In some cases, negotiation with the employer may be possible to modify the terms of the agreement or come to a mutual agreement.
Can you give me an example of a case when the Michigan courts ruled that a non-compete agreements is only enforceable to the extent that it protect legitimate business ?
Yes, there is a notable case in Michigan where the court ruled that a non-compete agreement was only enforceable to the extent that it protected legitimate business interests. The case is titled BHB Investment Holdings, LLC v. Ogg and involves a non-compete agreement between an employer and an employee.

In this case, the employee had signed a non-compete agreement with his employer, which prevented him from working for a competitor within a certain geographical area for a specified period of time after leaving the company. However, when the employee left the company and started working for a competing business outside of the restricted geographic area, the employer sued for breach of the non-compete agreement.

The court found that the non-compete agreement was overly restrictive and did not serve a legitimate business interest of the employer. The court held that the non-compete agreement could only be enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets, confidential information or customer relationships. Since the employee was working for a competing business outside of the restricted geographic area, and was not using any confidential information or trade secrets of the former employer, the court held that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that non-compete agreements are reasonable and tailored to serve legitimate business interests. Employers need to carefully consider the scope and duration of their non-compete agreements to avoid having them invalidated by the courts.