5 ms·
It's interesting to see one of the basis of defense is promises made during offer stage. Anecdotally speaking, and I am not remotely close to Hall's position o
by hm8 6y ago
It's interesting to see one of the basis of defense is promises made during offer stage.
Anecdotally speaking, and I am not remotely close to Hall's position or responsibilities (an engineer) and in the past, the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced.
On a separate note, anybody knows if Google would help with legal defense of Hall or ignore this as a private matter?
- Infinitesimus 6y agoGoogle likely considered legal defense as part of the hiring cost when taking someone that high profile. > the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced. Your average engineer is likely easily replaceable. Directors and VPs are hard to replace and a huge win for any company that successfully hires them.
- peterkos 6y ago> Google likely considered legal defense as part of the hiring cost when taking someone that high profile Stuff like this is always so fascinating to me: the idea that someone's ability to do their job is worth fighting over in court -- nevermind the cultural costs of bringing someone new into a executive position at a company.
- dboreham 6y agoThis is a very old tradition in the valley. I forget but I think the law in CA was changed sometime because these suits were almost always dismissed.
- QuinnyPig 6y agoNon-compete agreements haven't been enforceable in California since 1872.
- Thorrez 6y agoIt's not just him that you're getting. It's the goodwill and confidence you're giving to every single other potential future hire. If you refuse to defend the person and leave the person unemployed in the ditch, future candidates will be much less likely to want to join your company.
- pyuser583 6y agoSoftware engineers are hard as heck to replace.
- kelnos 6y ago> the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced. My policy is: "Hey, if you don't plan on enforcing it, let's remove it from the contract... oh, you're not allowed to remove it? I guess we're done talking then." Fortunately I live in CA where they're not legally enforceable anyway. > On a separate note, anybody knows if Google would help with legal defense of Hall or ignore this as a private matter? It's certainly in Google's best interest that the suit goes well for Hall, so I imagine Google's legal counsel would represent him. The only way I'd figure they wouldn't get involved is if doing so would make it more likely that there'd be a bad outcome for some reason.
- nmfisher 6y ago> My policy is: "Hey, if you don't plan on enforcing it, let's remove it from the contract... oh, you're not allowed to remove it? I guess we're done talking then." As a former lawyer, this is a very good policy to have. Alarm bells should be going off if someone tries to browbeat you into accepting "standard terms" on the basis that "they're not enforced".