4 ms·
> But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not. The difference is that with an illegal contract, your future employer might
by etjossem 9y ago
> But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not.
The difference is that with an illegal contract, your future employer might actually believe it's more headache than it's worth to fight. I would err on the side of casually striking it out of the employment contract, simply saying "this part of the standard document doesn't apply in our state" etc.
- deaddodo 9y agoYour new employer doesn't have to fight anything. Non-executive non-competes are specifically disallowed by the CA gov't. It's up to your previous employer to prove you were an executive (upper management/c-suite) and sue you, not vice versa.
- pfarnsworth 9y agoBut then you have to deal with a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc. Just because it's unenforceable doesn't mean that your shitty employer can't sue you. Why not just head it off at the beginning and have it right there in the signed contract?
- ulucs 9y agoIt'd be thrown out immediately anyway, due to having no legal basis (at least in the mainland European civil law systems)
- palunon 9y agoCalifornia doesn't have a mainland European civil law system.
- jimsug 9y agoYou don't necessarily need to hire a lawyer, but I've always found this to be one of the pains of the American costs system. On the other hand, a court can't really order you to work for the company, so even if by some miracle they were successful, it'd come down to a matter of damages, and those would be difficult to prove even if you went to work for a direct competitor.
- deaddodo 9y agoThe plaintiff pays costs in these cases (filing fees, motion fees, etc) and, if it gets thrown out (most likely, as it would be considered frivolous)/you win, you owe nothing. It's really a stupid action for a company to try and take.