3 ms·
I think he was making the argument that even if the employee violated anti-poaching terms in the contract, that any such violation shouldn't be legally suable b
by em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
I think he was making the argument that even if the employee violated anti-poaching terms in the contract, that any such violation shouldn't be legally suable because anti-poaching rules should be legally invalid, since they violate a fundamental right.
- Ntrails 10y agoAt this point I'm starting to wonder what doesn't constitute a fundamental right these days. It's not unreasonable for an employer to expect their employees not to spend their time at work working/advertising/recruiting for a separate business. Of course no such protection exists for conversations had down the pub after work. We've no real idea what the case in question involves - it may be that tesla cannot make it stick. It's all about context
- fastball 10y agoEh, if your "fundamental right" isn't a primary right, I feel like you can definitely sign it away.