The employer lodges a complaint against the worker for non-compliance with competition. The worker applied for the complaint to be dismissed on the grounds that the obligation not to compete was too broad and unenforceable. He argued that the obligation not to compete was not applicable, since it was a general prohibition on participating in activities for a competitor. He also argued that the pact would give him unreasonable harshness and that the employer was not in a position to demonstrate a sufficient legitimate interest in the application of the contract. Defines “consideration” as either two years of employment or “other equitable and appropriate consideration negotiated specifically in exchange for the obligation not to compete” (a clear reference to Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, 2013 IL App (1st) 12037, 993 N.E.2d 938); 4.