Target has a CEO who formerly worked for Amazon. The supply chain includes sellers that produce products, warehouses holding the product, completion centre distributing the goods to vendors, and stores selling the goods to final customers. A robust supply chain is crucial to the long-term growth of each business, as it can lower costs, increase profitability and improve engagement and engagement for consumers. Target has been fighting off-store goods for a long time, including becoming a powerful US discount industry leader. Target's supply chain was developed by consultants to support shipments of bricks and mortars and can not accommodate the elevated rates or complexities of internet transactions. According to CEO Brian Cornell, the performance of Target depends on its willingness to develop the basic facets of the business, starting with its supply chain." As a result, Target recently tried to restructure the supply chain for an experienced businessman, Arthur Valdez, a senior Amazon employee. Over the course of its 16 years at the world's largest internet marketplace, Valdez has moved through a number of increasingly responsible positions across the supply chain. He was elected Vice President of Operations by Amazon, where he was responsible for the expansion of the worldwide supply chain of the Firm. John Mulligan was designated Vice President and Logistics Officer for Target Chief Supply Chain and Valdez was appointed Chief Operating Officer. "Arthur's leadership and knowledge will help us accelerate improvements in end-to-end processes, including the use of our almost 1,800 stores to streamline our customers' service." Employers also bring legal lawsuits in the retail industry in order to prevent trade information from leaking beyond their enterprise as in many other industries. Amazon filed a lawsuit in the Washington State Court after Target's statement to try to keep Valdez from continuing his new work with Target. The proceedings are often meant as a dissuasive and a challenge to some. Valdez reached a non-competition agreement with Amazon to prevent him, according to the firm, 18 months after his departure from hiring any direct competitor. Valdez reportedly exchanged confidential details with Tar regarding the manufacturing and activities of Amazon during the peak holidays. In accordance with the company's litigation Mr. Valdez is unwilling to manage Target's supply chain business because of confidential details obtained from Amazon. Amazon also ordered Valdez to reimburse Amazon in court for litigation fees. Amazon's complaint states that "Mr. Valdez learns, produces and applies Amazon's most secret strategies and methodologies, like a comparative study of Target and associated opponents, in Amazn's supply chain and logistic operations." According to the complaint, in the supply chain processes Valdez's "intimate knowledge of Amazon's own metrics and analytics" has been included. Target replied to Amazon that Valdez had not violated any deals and that the company had taken "serious measures" to ensure that all personal data are kept confidential." According to the objective, Amazon's case is illegal. In a range of nations, non-compete arrangements are used in a myriad of forms. The courts of Washington use a three-factor test to determine if the non-competition provision can be equitable or not. The courts consider (1) whether a non-competition agreement imposes on the employee a greater limit than is reasonable necessary to protect the company and/or the goodwill of the employer; (2) whether the agreement imposes more restrictions on the employee than are reasonable for safeguarding an employer's business or the goodwill of the employee; (3) whether the agreement imposes any significant limitation on it; and and Instead of risking a long court battle, Amazon decided to sign a non-disclosure deal with Valdez. 2 Critical Thinking Questions Do you believe Washington has passed the three-factor state review to enforce the anti-competitive provisions of Valdez? Should it really be accepted? What clauses in the Target and Amazon settlement do you think are reasonable? Does it encourage or impede creativity in a non-competent environment? Provide the response with a history.