3 ms·

In the linked article, the writer wasn't fired because her old company sued her for competing, she was fired simply because the new company found out she had si

In the linked article, the writer wasn't fired because her old company sued her for competing, she was fired simply because the new company found out she had signed a non-compete and presumably wanted to avoid any potential lawsuit-related shenanigans. Unfortunately, this isn't quite accurate, as shown by the Q&A at the end of the article. Although her previous employer didn't directly sue her, it essentially threatened to sue her. Moreover, the way her new employer found out about her previous non-compete agreement was because her old employer specifically notified them and indicated that she had confidential information. Her new company basically had no choice but to fire her.

chrismcb 11y ago
How does your statement differ from the parent statement? And yes her new company had a choice, they could have kept her and dealt with the court issue if it came up.
- hexagonc 11y ago
  I didn't say the quoted section was false, I just said it was inaccurate because it gives an inaccurate impression of what was happening in the original article. Without reading the article, you might think that she was fired due to the 'chilling effects' of non-competes. However, in this case, the threat was more tangible. Her new company didn't just find out about the non-compete 'through the grape vine', they found out because the previous company forcefully notified them. This gives a much greater indication of intent to sue then if the prior company had kept quiet about it, as they apparently did for most other employees. Remember, it was apparently a well-known fact that employees from her firm occasionally moved to 'competing' firms. This was why she wasn't initially worried about the non-compete in the first place, because she didn't think they would enforce it. Reuters probably got rattled once they saw that Law360 was serious about the non-compete. Technically, Reuters could have gone to court on her behalf but why bother unless she was some highly sought-after journalist? Intimidating letters are meant to make you weigh your choices carefully. Also, while Law360 didn't literally sue her, it gave every indication that it intended to if she continued at Reuters.

chrismcb 11y ago

How does your statement differ from the parent statement? And yes her new company had a choice, they could have kept her and dealt with the court issue if it came up.

hexagonc 11y ago
I didn't say the quoted section was false, I just said it was inaccurate because it gives an inaccurate impression of what was happening in the original article. Without reading the article, you might think that she was fired due to the 'chilling effects' of non-competes. However, in this case, the threat was more tangible. Her new company didn't just find out about the non-compete 'through the grape vine', they found out because the previous company forcefully notified them. This gives a much greater indication of intent to sue then if the prior company had kept quiet about it, as they apparently did for most other employees. Remember, it was apparently a well-known fact that employees from her firm occasionally moved to 'competing' firms. This was why she wasn't initially worried about the non-compete in the first place, because she didn't think they would enforce it. Reuters probably got rattled once they saw that Law360 was serious about the non-compete. Technically, Reuters could have gone to court on her behalf but why bother unless she was some highly sought-after journalist? Intimidating letters are meant to make you weigh your choices carefully. Also, while Law360 didn't literally sue her, it gave every indication that it intended to if she continued at Reuters.