6 ms·

(Pipe)Dream scenario this gets challenged and ends up in the supreme court and non-competes as a practice are ended completely.

• harryh 9y ago
  On what Constitutional grounds could the Supreme Court possibly support such a ruling?
  • twobyfour 9y ago
    Perhaps that it constitutes a form of slavery? Yeah, a bit of a stretch.
    • drtillberg 9y ago
      Maybe less so if the employee cannot securely pursue any line of work at all.
  • falcolas 9y ago
    On the same grounds that states like California outlaw such agreements? In reality, though, they would probably not take such a case and simply let the lower court's ruling stand.
    • pm90 9y ago
      This is exactly correct. From its terrible work culture and now this, it seems like legal action is only a way of intimidating present employees to toe the line or else face expensive legal action. They most certainly don't want to risk losing the opportunity to have a non compete at all (because right now they DO have that option and have absolutely no regulations on it).
    • Bedon292 9y ago
      Didn't California specifically draft legislation to prevent them? That is very different than challenging the enforceability based on currently existing laws in other states.
      • _delirium 9y ago
        Sort of. The original 1872 California Civil Code contains a provision voiding contracts that restrain otherwise lawful trade [1]. But that code was intended to be just a codification of the common law, not a major change in the law (except regarding procedures, which it was intended to simplify), so its authors thought that they were simply restating the common-law rule against restraint of trade. It turns out that either they were wrong in what the common law said, or else it has evolved differently in the years since then, because California's explicitly codified provision has turned out to have much more teeth than the common-law rule it was intended to restate. But they were of the opinion that these kinds of contracts should already have been voided at common law. Unfortunately the codification movement lost steam or else it might've ended up in the law of many other states [2]. [1] This is the modern descendant of that section: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=16600.&lawCode=BPC http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... [2] A bit on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dudley_Field_II#Dedication_to_codification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dudley_Field_II#Dedicati...
    • sbuttgereit 9y ago
      Actually, the same constitutional grounds on which California law does not recognize non-compete agreements would be the same grounds on which the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold Washington's recognition of such clauses. That such laws are not the concern of the federal government under the constitution. Such powers are reserved by the state by the constitution. Of course, there could be some batshit crazy application of the commerce clause (wouldn't be the first time), but that could go either way.
      • falcolas 9y ago
        I'd be curious if this holds true across state lines. For example, if I'm hired by Amazon in Washington, then go to work for Google in California, is the no-compete recognized as valid? I'm sure the answer is "it depends", but I think that's why it could come up in the higher courts. And since appeals will go up to those higher federal courts, which would have to make a more broad-reaching decision (even if it is simply "the lower court's ruling stands").
        • sbuttgereit 9y ago
          Usually contracts are specific in identifying jurisdiction/venue. http://www.adamsdrafting.com/if-you-want-exclusive-jurisdiction/ http://www.adamsdrafting.com/if-you-want-exclusive-jurisdict... (can't vouch for it... I'm not a lawyer nor did I review it much.) Given that many contracts are with parties across state lines, yet subject to some state's law, I have to assume that there is a substantial set of precedents which have established how to properly set jurisdiction/venue. It won't be a new problem.
    • DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      I think you misunderstand - California outlawed non-competes by passing a law, not by interpreting the US/California constitution. It was not the judicial branch that outlawed them, but the legislative one. I.e., to do it the same way California did it, would mean passing a new federal law, not a new ruling along constitutional grounds.
  • walshemj 9y ago
    Interference in interstate commerce and arguably on human rights grounds Article 13 and 23 for example.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • Spooky23 9y ago
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." If developers and fast food workers alike feel compelled to move to California to escape the yoke of constricting and onerous non-compete agreements, there's an argument to be made that it's a meaningful impact to interstate commerce.
    • harryh 9y ago
      That clause gives Congress the power to pass a law outlawing non compete agreements. It doesn't give the court the power to outlaw the practice on its own.
    • ghaff 9y ago
      Please don't give the Supreme Court any further ideas about expanding the scope of the Commerce Clause. :-)