4 ms·
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 no
by 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 agoI 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 agoWell, 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.