4 ms·

I am curious, given the length of time she was employed at her new employer and her statement saying her editors were aware of this, whether this was just the H

• srussellkraft 11y ago
  The editors in the legal news department knew; that doesn't mean the corporate side knew or cared until Law360 sent its letter. I was let go because of the non-disclosure of the non-compete - I can assure you there was no other reason. In fact, HR didn't even need a reason to fire me, but they still gave me one.
• timv 11y ago
  There's some confusing language in the article that might make you think that she worked at Reuters (the new employer) for a long time. In fact she was only there for a few weeks: ... who Thomson Reuters fired within weeks after hiring her in September The bit that confuses it is this: I also later found out that every editor in my section at Reuters had been well aware of the non-compete for years What I think she's saying is that the editors at her new employer were well aware (and had been "for years") that Law360 (her old employer) used these non-competes, and (by implication) that she'd be subject to one. It gives the impression that she worked there for years, but that seems to just be an unintended consequence of the phrasing.