3 ms·

Is there any precedent in the US of a non-compete being anti-constitutional? As far as I know, most non-competes were determined anti constitutional, as you can

Is there any precedent in the US of a non-compete being anti-constitutional? As far as I know, most non-competes were determined anti constitutional, as you can't force someone to not get a job. The only time they'd still be viable, would be in the type of examples that OP gave.

evan_ 15y ago
not really sure how that would apply- the constitution exists to define the powers of the government, and a non-compete contract would be a civil matter between a company and an individual.
- ajross 15y ago
  Civil matters are still enforced by the government, and subject to legal scrutiny. You can't hire an assassin and then sue them for breach of contract if they fail to kill the target, for instance.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  Any civil matter can also be regulated (regulations can apply to anything, really). But in a practical sense, regulations pertaining to business and professions like this are handled by the states, while the feds really only get into it when it's a matter of worker safety, taxation, those kinds of things. This is why you can laugh at a noncompete in California, while up in Washington, Microsoft gets to own its employees' dreams for years after they leave the company. Non-competes are so unbelievably worker-hostile that they should really be outlawed everywhere. I really like the idea of forcing the employer who's enforcing the non-compete to pay full salary for the duration of the non-compete. It seems only fair that if you're trying to keep me off the market because I'm so potentially devastating to your business that you should pay for the privilege.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]