See Agricultural Labor v. Richard A. Glass Co., 175 Cal.App.3d 703, 221 Cal.Rptr. 63, 70 (1985); Carbonic Fire Extinguishers v. Heath, 190 Ill. App.3d 948, 138 Ill.Dec. 508, 510, 547 N.E.2d 675, 677 (1989). Compare Aristocrat Window Co. v. Randell, 56 Ill. App.2d 413, 206 N.E.2d 545, 553 (1965) ["A price list in itself is not necessarily a trade secret"]; Apollo Stationery Co. v. Pilmar, 11 Misc.2d 263, 265, 268, 173 N.Y.S.2d 854, 857 (1958) ["Prices are not trade secrets in the sale of ordinary merchandise"]. Here, the PSC found that the "price and volume data contained in NSP's filings derives independent economic value from not being generally known to and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by providers of alternative fuel," that this data "is kept confidential by NSP," and that, therefore, this data constitutes a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

However, it has been long established that the reasonableness of a postemployment restrictive covenant is a matter of law to be decided by the court. See Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 437, 447 (2007); Dam, Snell and Taveirne, Ltd. v. Verchota, 324 Ill. App. 3d 146, 154 (2001); MBL (USA) Corp. v. Diekman, 112 Ill. App. 3d 229, 237 (1983); Tower Oil & Technology Co., Inc. v. Buckley, 99 Ill. App. 3d 637, 642 (1981); Image Supplies, Inc. v. Hilmert, 71 Ill. App. 3d 710, 712 (1979); and Aristocrat Window Co. v. Randell, 56 Ill. App. 2d 413, 424 (1965). Because such agreements in employment contracts could attempt to uphold provisions that are patently unenforceable in an attempt to circumvent Illinois case law, we will examine the restrictive covenants at issue to determine their reasonableness. ¶ 26 Mazzetta's noncompete paragraph mandates that Felsenthal not "engage" as an "employee, consultant, proprietor, partner, director or otherwise" or "have any ownership interest," or "participate in the financing, operation, management or control" in a substantially similar business including, without limitation, any frozen seafood importing business in "any market area or any county, parish, territory, or similar division of any state in the United States or province in North America" where Mazzetta currently does business in, did any business in while Felsenthal was employed there, or has plans to do business in, for 18 months following his termination.

Moreover, the Agreement renders Unterberger virtually unemployable in his field of occupation as well as other related fields. Employment agreements which restrict an employee's ability to earn a living in his field of occupation throughout an unreasonable geographical area are against public policy and unenforceable. Aristocrat Window Co. v. Randell (1965), 56 Ill. App.2d 413, 427, 206 N.E.2d 545, 552. NAPCO also seeks to enforce the nondisclosure aspect of the Agreement.

The plaintiff was entitled to this notice and his termination without prior written notice was breach of the contract. ( Aristocrat Window Co. v. Randell (1965), 56 Ill. App.2d 413, 206 N.E.2d 545.) Accordingly, plaintiff's resignation at a date when he could not be fired was sufficient consideration for the agreement to pay the retirement funds unconditionally.