4 ms·

"California law voids any provision, contract term or purported "agreement" that prevents them from working for a competitor or to work for him or herself. I

by drubio 19y ago

"California law voids any provision, contract term or purported "agreement" that prevents them from working for a competitor or to work for him or herself. In other words, restrictions on an employee's right to work for a competitor or to operate a competing business are illegal and cannot be enforced" Source: http://www.employlaw.com/noncompete.htm http://www.employlaw.com/noncompete.htm

tocomment 19y ago
wow, I wish all states did that. but wait, Microsoft is in WA, so you sign the contract in WA. Can CA really say a contract signed in WA is void? So in that case anyone in the country can work at any job in CA they want regardless of what their non-compete says?
- RyanGWU82 19y ago
  Well, in this case, Mr. Horowitz worked for Yahoo, in what was clearly a California job. The California laws would most certainly prevail. If you work for Microsoft, in Washington, then there's likely to be a tight non-compete clause. Washington courts are very permissive toward employers regarding non-compete provisions. I can't speak to the specifics, although there was a high-profile case a year ago involving a Microsoft executive who was sued and ultimately was prohibited from working for Google. Finally, many companies don't enforce non-compete agreements strictly unless you do something wrong, i.e. stealing information from your employer to help someone else directly compete against them. (IANAL, and I don't even play one on TV.)
  - aston 19y ago
    The case you're talking about, I think, was that of Kai-Fu Lee, who actually was allowed to work at Google, but wasn't allowed to work in the areas he worked in at Microsoft for a year. Instead, he did general recruiting.
    - RyanGWU82 19y ago
      Ah, good point. But in that case, Microsoft still put their foot down, and it was decided in a Washington state court. (I just did some research about this a few weeks ago. Had Google filed a case first, asking for a declaratory judgment, they likely could have gotten it handled in California courts, and the decision would have gone the other way. Seems like a rather screwy system...)

by drubio 19y ago

tocomment 19y ago

wow, I wish all states did that. but wait, Microsoft is in WA, so you sign the contract in WA. Can CA really say a contract signed in WA is void? So in that case anyone in the country can work at any job in CA they want regardless of what their non-compete says?

RyanGWU82 19y ago
Well, in this case, Mr. Horowitz worked for Yahoo, in what was clearly a California job. The California laws would most certainly prevail. If you work for Microsoft, in Washington, then there's likely to be a tight non-compete clause. Washington courts are very permissive toward employers regarding non-compete provisions. I can't speak to the specifics, although there was a high-profile case a year ago involving a Microsoft executive who was sued and ultimately was prohibited from working for Google. Finally, many companies don't enforce non-compete agreements strictly unless you do something wrong, i.e. stealing information from your employer to help someone else directly compete against them. (IANAL, and I don't even play one on TV.)
- aston 19y ago
  The case you're talking about, I think, was that of Kai-Fu Lee, who actually was allowed to work at Google, but wasn't allowed to work in the areas he worked in at Microsoft for a year. Instead, he did general recruiting.
  - RyanGWU82 19y ago
    Ah, good point. But in that case, Microsoft still put their foot down, and it was decided in a Washington state court. (I just did some research about this a few weeks ago. Had Google filed a case first, asking for a declaratory judgment, they likely could have gotten it handled in California courts, and the decision would have gone the other way. Seems like a rather screwy system...)