7 ms·

I recently changed jobs, and feared my old employer could (but not necessarily would) come after me for non-compete. So, first my new Employer's lawyer looked o

I recently changed jobs, and feared my old employer could (but not necessarily would) come after me for non-compete. So, first my new Employer's lawyer looked over everything and said I should be good. Then I hired my own lawyer, to do the same thing (and look over the new employers docs as well) just to cover myself independently. And finally I got in writing that my new employer would cover any legal action pursued by my old employer, just in case. I would highly recommend the same to anyone else. Absolutely worth the time and money to be safe and covered if you still live / work somewhere they are enforceable.

justdan 9y ago
Do you think telling a potential employer that you've signed a non-compete could hurt your chances though?
- Bedon292 9y ago
  That's a good question. I don't think so, not in the DC area at least. They are standard around here. I think its expected that you have, and will sign a new one with the new employer anyways. During my my interview process one of the potential employers even asked to see any non-compete and NDAs that I had with my current employer, before they would move forward. Because they want to make sure they are in the clear too. I suppose it could hurt in some situations, but I feel its best to be open and honest about the situation. If you are changing careers, you may be safe to not bring it up, but otherwise at least talk to your own lawyer.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Potentially. They'd have to weigh both the legitimacy of the non-compete and their ability to either fight it or eat the costs of losing a new hire. But it's also good full-disclosure, since they could probably dismiss you on the same grounds. Someone caught behind a harsh-and-enforceable noncompete could certainly find getting hired very tricky. At that point they might well have to move - for instance, to California where out-of-state noncompetes are (usually) void.
- ghaff 9y ago
  It certainly can. I worked for a (very) small consulting firm. We basically wouldn't entertain hiring anyone with a non-compete that was remotely applicable. Just too much potential risk/cost. Doubly so if they worked for a client or a competitor. (Quite common.)
Someone1234 9y ago
Sounds very thorough, but also very expensive. Plus it relies on the new employer being willing to indemnify you, which many would refuse. Did you get that assurance in writing by the way? Many of these noncompete disputes seem to boil down less to legalise, and more to a company's weight class. If an Amazon or a Google, sues a startup for a noncompete, then the startup will lose, even if they're legally right (legal fees, injunctions, travel costs (assuming inconvenient court, etc).
- Bedon292 9y ago
  Its true, it wasn't cheap, it did take about 2 hours of my lawyers time to do their thorough research. (Edit) But I would much rather spend two hours on a lawyer to be safe, than spend a week on them being in court. And I suppose I was lucky that my employer was willing to do it, but they did do so in writing. Their lawyer already looked over everything and agreed, so was low risk to them. And yes I could see the problem with large going after small. Which is a whole other issue. At least in Virginia non-competes are very strict on how they can be enforced. If something is deemed 'too broad' it will be thrown right out. And it has to be a similar position at a direct competitor. I think a small company does have a fair chance against big ones in these situations, at least here. Unless of course they really are breaching the non-compete. (Edit) I suppose my point should be, cover yourself as much as you can. Not everyone may get as lucky as I did, but at least try. The last thing you want is to end up blindsided by a situation such as this story.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    > And I suppose I was lucky that my employer was willing to do it, but they did do so in writing. Their lawyer already looked over everything and agreed, so was low risk to them. I suppose there's an argument that being employee-friendly about this is a good move for companies. After all, they reviewed the contract and shelled out to hire you, so they're clearly accepting some risk over the issue. Amazon threatens and blusters over noncompetes to retain staff, but someone who promises to fight unrealistic noncompetes might gain an advantage in hiring new staff - especially from places like Amazon.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I worked for a company that wrote software for a particular industry. It was bought and the buyers gave everyone three days to sign a no-compete or quit. Worked there a while until I found a new job writing software for a different industry. New company had a subsidiary that wrote software for old company's industry. Got a letter from new company saying I would in no way do work at the subsidiary, gave it to old company's legal office and got permission to work for new company. It was a hassle, but not nearly as bad as having to get my own lawyer and such.
- dangero 9y ago
  The key here being you had to get permission to take on your new job from your current employer. You were at their mercy to continue your career just because you worked as their employee for a while. What if they had said no? If you weren't taking trade secrets with you, then should they really be in the conversation at all?
  - bluGill 9y ago
    I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. What I do is not up to them: I have said I do not want to work for them, and they won't let me work where I want, so the only middle ground it getting paid for not working at all. This includes cost of living raises every year. Note, if you are ever in this situation you should not let yourself stagnate. Someday they will decide your knowledge isn't worth the price they are paying and release you. If you have nothing to show for your time nobody will hire you and that is your own fault. I recommend grad school, or get a degree in something else, or make it your full time job to work on open source projects. Generally courts frown on non-competes: they fail to meet the standards of a contract as there is no consideration from one side and a person has the right to support themselves using their knowledge and experience. Courts are sympathetic only when you are taking specific knowledge to the new company and that is a higher bar than most non-competes can meet.
    - vkou 9y ago
bsder 9y ago
And the old company could still sue you anyway. Even though non-competes are illegal in California, a company can be a jerk about it and force you to court to get it thrown out--which will take a long time and be expensive.

justdan 9y ago

Do you think telling a potential employer that you've signed a non-compete could hurt your chances though?

Bedon292 9y ago
That's a good question. I don't think so, not in the DC area at least. They are standard around here. I think its expected that you have, and will sign a new one with the new employer anyways. During my my interview process one of the potential employers even asked to see any non-compete and NDAs that I had with my current employer, before they would move forward. Because they want to make sure they are in the clear too. I suppose it could hurt in some situations, but I feel its best to be open and honest about the situation. If you are changing careers, you may be safe to not bring it up, but otherwise at least talk to your own lawyer.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Potentially. They'd have to weigh both the legitimacy of the non-compete and their ability to either fight it or eat the costs of losing a new hire. But it's also good full-disclosure, since they could probably dismiss you on the same grounds. Someone caught behind a harsh-and-enforceable noncompete could certainly find getting hired very tricky. At that point they might well have to move - for instance, to California where out-of-state noncompetes are (usually) void.
ghaff 9y ago
It certainly can. I worked for a (very) small consulting firm. We basically wouldn't entertain hiring anyone with a non-compete that was remotely applicable. Just too much potential risk/cost. Doubly so if they worked for a client or a competitor. (Quite common.)

Someone1234 9y ago

Sounds very thorough, but also very expensive. Plus it relies on the new employer being willing to indemnify you, which many would refuse. Did you get that assurance in writing by the way? Many of these noncompete disputes seem to boil down less to legalise, and more to a company's weight class. If an Amazon or a Google, sues a startup for a noncompete, then the startup will lose, even if they're legally right (legal fees, injunctions, travel costs (assuming inconvenient court, etc).

Bedon292 9y ago
Its true, it wasn't cheap, it did take about 2 hours of my lawyers time to do their thorough research. (Edit) But I would much rather spend two hours on a lawyer to be safe, than spend a week on them being in court. And I suppose I was lucky that my employer was willing to do it, but they did do so in writing. Their lawyer already looked over everything and agreed, so was low risk to them. And yes I could see the problem with large going after small. Which is a whole other issue. At least in Virginia non-competes are very strict on how they can be enforced. If something is deemed 'too broad' it will be thrown right out. And it has to be a similar position at a direct competitor. I think a small company does have a fair chance against big ones in these situations, at least here. Unless of course they really are breaching the non-compete. (Edit) I suppose my point should be, cover yourself as much as you can. Not everyone may get as lucky as I did, but at least try. The last thing you want is to end up blindsided by a situation such as this story.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > And I suppose I was lucky that my employer was willing to do it, but they did do so in writing. Their lawyer already looked over everything and agreed, so was low risk to them. I suppose there's an argument that being employee-friendly about this is a good move for companies. After all, they reviewed the contract and shelled out to hire you, so they're clearly accepting some risk over the issue. Amazon threatens and blusters over noncompetes to retain staff, but someone who promises to fight unrealistic noncompetes might gain an advantage in hiring new staff - especially from places like Amazon.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

I worked for a company that wrote software for a particular industry. It was bought and the buyers gave everyone three days to sign a no-compete or quit. Worked there a while until I found a new job writing software for a different industry. New company had a subsidiary that wrote software for old company's industry. Got a letter from new company saying I would in no way do work at the subsidiary, gave it to old company's legal office and got permission to work for new company. It was a hassle, but not nearly as bad as having to get my own lawyer and such.

dangero 9y ago
The key here being you had to get permission to take on your new job from your current employer. You were at their mercy to continue your career just because you worked as their employee for a while. What if they had said no? If you weren't taking trade secrets with you, then should they really be in the conversation at all?
- bluGill 9y ago
  I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. What I do is not up to them: I have said I do not want to work for them, and they won't let me work where I want, so the only middle ground it getting paid for not working at all. This includes cost of living raises every year. Note, if you are ever in this situation you should not let yourself stagnate. Someday they will decide your knowledge isn't worth the price they are paying and release you. If you have nothing to show for your time nobody will hire you and that is your own fault. I recommend grad school, or get a degree in something else, or make it your full time job to work on open source projects. Generally courts frown on non-competes: they fail to meet the standards of a contract as there is no consideration from one side and a person has the right to support themselves using their knowledge and experience. Courts are sympathetic only when you are taking specific knowledge to the new company and that is a higher bar than most non-competes can meet.
  - vkou 9y ago

bsder 9y ago

And the old company could still sue you anyway. Even though non-competes are illegal in California, a company can be a jerk about it and force you to court to get it thrown out--which will take a long time and be expensive.