3 ms·
> By all means, make non-competes largely unenforceable like they are in California (where they aren't actually "banned"). Largely? Aren’t they completely unen
by barry-cotter 6y ago
> By all means, make non-competes largely unenforceable like they are in California (where they aren't actually "banned").
Largely? Aren’t they completely unenforceable? I seem to recall some big case where a C suite executive left and that was unenforceable. All that’s left is board members with a fiduciary duty, if that.
California’s stance on non-competes is so broad and uncompromising that you could show up and represent yourself, drunk, versus the finest legal team money could buy and you’ll win.
- ghaff 6y agoI am not an employment lawyer but very few things about employment contracts are so simple that you can just show up in court drunk and be fine. (Yes, I know you're being hyperbolic.) In part, because if you have a non-compete, you may well also have NDAs, non-solicitation clauses, etc. which are enforceable in CA. If a company wants to make your life difficult you're probably going to be out thousands of dollars in legal fees, lack of non-compete enforceability in CA notwithstanding.
- paul_f 6y agoThe reason for "largely" is that in come sases, non-competes are enforceable. For example, if you buy a company, you can enforce a reasonable non-compete clause for the prior owners.
- sonotmyname 6y agoI live in California, and when I got my first non-compete 25 years ago (out of state company, it was their standard hiring package), I asked my dads friend (a corporate council - aka an attorney who knows about this stuff) about signing it. His advice was to redline everything, sign it, and return it with the package. If the employer had balked he’d have written a letter in response, but that didn’t happen. So that’s been my routine ever since - non-competes and any non-compete language get a red pen through them, signed, and returned. I’ve never had a single company even mention it, let alone push back.