4 ms·

The specific issue with the author of this article is that she did not disclose her prior noncompete to the new employer. Of course the new employer did not sig

The specific issue with the author of this article is that she did not disclose her prior noncompete to the new employer. Of course the new employer did not sign the noncompete with the former employer, so there is no contractual privity and thus no direct basis for the former employer to sue the new one for breach of contract. The only way the former employer can mess with them is to argue that they intentionally interfered with the contract by encouraging the journalist to violate it. The SOP for employers targeted by such claims is to put the employee in question on leave, or on alternative duty if something's available that is unrelated to her prior job and does not risk violation of her covenants. To terminate the employee altogether is a rather extreme move. It's a solid damage mitigation strategy, but I think conveys a total lack of spine, particularly for a journalistic organization. The right thing to do would have been to put her on leave, while attempting to get dismissed from the lawsuit -- which should have been easy enough to do since the new employer apparently had no knowledge of the prior contract.

ghaff 11y ago
Much as I'm against non-competes under most circumstances... >The specific issue with the author of this article is that she did not disclose her prior noncompete to the new employer. In fact, according to the original WSJ article, "In applying for the job at the Reuters newswire, she checked a box saying she wasn’t subject to any noncompete agreement. Her termination letter from Reuters, which was reviewed by the Journal, said that mistake cost her the job." I get that she had supposedly forgotten she had signed one but it puts Reuters in a tough situation.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  It actually puts Reuters in a great situation! Because they have a piece of evidence that says they had no knowledge of the restrictive covenants. Sure, it's not an accurate disclosure on the part of the employee. But that inaccuracy only strengthens Reuters position in this case. You could say "ah, but Reuters never would've hired her if the noncompete had been disclosed." Not sure about that, because a fair reading of the noncompete is that under New York law it cannot prevent the employee from practicing her trade of journalism. If I were Reuters HR, and I saw the noncompete, I might not have considered it a problem (aside from the industry practice of filing meritless lawsuits).
  - srussellkraft 11y ago
    I agree with you that the box-checking cost me my job, and the decision was easy for Reuters. But the company now has a blanket policy in place not to hire from my former employer because of the non-compete. So other employees are now prevented from moving there.
    - zekevermillion 11y ago
      Well, it was cited as the reason from what I read. But they could have stood by you without increasing their legal exposure. I would hope to see the AG's office take some action against publishers who use overly broad noncompetes to depress the labor market.

ghaff 11y ago

Much as I'm against non-competes under most circumstances... >The specific issue with the author of this article is that she did not disclose her prior noncompete to the new employer. In fact, according to the original WSJ article, "In applying for the job at the Reuters newswire, she checked a box saying she wasn’t subject to any noncompete agreement. Her termination letter from Reuters, which was reviewed by the Journal, said that mistake cost her the job." I get that she had supposedly forgotten she had signed one but it puts Reuters in a tough situation.

zekevermillion 11y ago
It actually puts Reuters in a great situation! Because they have a piece of evidence that says they had no knowledge of the restrictive covenants. Sure, it's not an accurate disclosure on the part of the employee. But that inaccuracy only strengthens Reuters position in this case. You could say "ah, but Reuters never would've hired her if the noncompete had been disclosed." Not sure about that, because a fair reading of the noncompete is that under New York law it cannot prevent the employee from practicing her trade of journalism. If I were Reuters HR, and I saw the noncompete, I might not have considered it a problem (aside from the industry practice of filing meritless lawsuits).
- srussellkraft 11y ago
  I agree with you that the box-checking cost me my job, and the decision was easy for Reuters. But the company now has a blanket policy in place not to hire from my former employer because of the non-compete. So other employees are now prevented from moving there.
  - zekevermillion 11y ago
    Well, it was cited as the reason from what I read. But they could have stood by you without increasing their legal exposure. I would hope to see the AG's office take some action against publishers who use overly broad noncompetes to depress the labor market.