7 ms·

There is probably a non compete exactly for this situation.

klean92 11y ago
I see no chance in the world that a bleeding company busy laying off and restructuring will sue a laid off worker because he's trying to make 50-100K a year. Why would they pay more expensive lawyers to do that? If the lay him off, it really meams they don't want that kind of business anyway. Companies are driven by business people, not lawyers.
weavie 11y ago
Maybe, but if you get laid off all bets are off really. Maybe it is different in the US, but in the UK I've known of cases of people who have been laid off who then went on the form competing companies. There may have been some law suits flying around behind the scenes, but in the end these companies settled and were successful.
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  My understanding is that being laid off is a "termination of contract" - therefore making any noncompete terms in said contract null and void. Not to mention that "restrictive covenants" such as a noncompete won't fly in this sort of situation. Then again, my experience is with UK employment law so please don't take this as legal advice.
  - BorgHunter 11y ago
    This depends on one's jurisdiction, in the U.S. at least. For example, in Illinois, non-competes are generally enforceable.[0] In California, they are generally not.[1] [0] http://www.isba.org/ibj/2012/01/lawpulse/employmentcovenantsnottocompetetheh http://www.isba.org/ibj/2012/01/lawpulse/employmentcovenants... [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/calif-supreme-court-finds-noncompete-clauses-invalid/ http://www.cnet.com/news/calif-supreme-court-finds-noncompet...
    - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
      Even when you have been made redundant?
      - BorgHunter 11y ago
        It seems to depend on the totality of the circumstances, in Illinois, so I'd imagine the nonvoluntary nature of the termination would be taken into account. But there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. If it ended up in litigation it could get messy; there isn't a terribly large amount of guidance from the courts.
        mring33621 11y ago
        Regardless of the possibility of litigation, the logic is very simple: 1) a non-compete indicates that the employee has some skillset or knowledge that the business does not want to lose to a competitor; 2) the involuntary release of that same employee indicates that (1) is no longer true, unless the released employee is fairly compensated for the non-compete period. I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present.
        benaiah 11y ago
        > I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore any legal advice you give, then. That's completely bonkers.
        georgemcbay 11y ago
        Personally I'd still talk to a lawyer (easy for me to say as I have a friend who is a business lawyer), but I wouldn't go so far as to say not having a lawyer here would be "bonkers" The argument is pretty clear and rational; unless the judge was in the pocket of the company on the other end of the suit (in which case you're fucked anyway), I think representing one's self would be pretty straightforward in this case.
panzagl 11y ago
They still have to sue you to enforce it- better to have a 6 figure income and a non-compete lawsuit winding its way through court than to be handing out carts at Walmart.

I see no chance in the world that a bleeding company busy laying off and restructuring will sue a laid off worker because he's trying to make 50-100K a year. Why would they pay more expensive lawyers to do that? If the lay him off, it really meams they don't want that kind of business anyway. Companies are driven by business people, not lawyers.

weavie 11y ago

Maybe, but if you get laid off all bets are off really. Maybe it is different in the US, but in the UK I've known of cases of people who have been laid off who then went on the form competing companies. There may have been some law suits flying around behind the scenes, but in the end these companies settled and were successful.

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
My understanding is that being laid off is a "termination of contract" - therefore making any noncompete terms in said contract null and void. Not to mention that "restrictive covenants" such as a noncompete won't fly in this sort of situation. Then again, my experience is with UK employment law so please don't take this as legal advice.
- BorgHunter 11y ago
  This depends on one's jurisdiction, in the U.S. at least. For example, in Illinois, non-competes are generally enforceable.[0] In California, they are generally not.[1] [0] http://www.isba.org/ibj/2012/01/lawpulse/employmentcovenantsnottocompetetheh http://www.isba.org/ibj/2012/01/lawpulse/employmentcovenants... [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/calif-supreme-court-finds-noncompete-clauses-invalid/ http://www.cnet.com/news/calif-supreme-court-finds-noncompet...
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Even when you have been made redundant?
    - BorgHunter 11y ago
      It seems to depend on the totality of the circumstances, in Illinois, so I'd imagine the nonvoluntary nature of the termination would be taken into account. But there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. If it ended up in litigation it could get messy; there isn't a terribly large amount of guidance from the courts.
      - mring33621 11y ago
        Regardless of the possibility of litigation, the logic is very simple: 1) a non-compete indicates that the employee has some skillset or knowledge that the business does not want to lose to a competitor; 2) the involuntary release of that same employee indicates that (1) is no longer true, unless the released employee is fairly compensated for the non-compete period. I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present.
        benaiah 11y ago
        > I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore any legal advice you give, then. That's completely bonkers.
        georgemcbay 11y ago
        Personally I'd still talk to a lawyer (easy for me to say as I have a friend who is a business lawyer), but I wouldn't go so far as to say not having a lawyer here would be "bonkers" The argument is pretty clear and rational; unless the judge was in the pocket of the company on the other end of the suit (in which case you're fucked anyway), I think representing one's self would be pretty straightforward in this case.

panzagl 11y ago

They still have to sue you to enforce it- better to have a 6 figure income and a non-compete lawsuit winding its way through court than to be handing out carts at Walmart.