3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoUsually 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.