3 ms·
That is true now due to the FTC ban on non-competes, but it was not true before that. The enforceability varied widely from state to state. Here's a table showi
by tzs 2y ago
That is true now due to the FTC ban on non-competes, but it was not true before that. The enforceability varied widely from state to state. Here's a table showing how it was in 2016 [1]. My guess is that your corporate law professor was talking about enforceability in the specific state you were in.
Also, most I've seen were required to be signed when employment began, not when employment ended.
[1] https://beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/ https://beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/
- anon291 2y agoOverly specific non-competes are just not enforceable. Just tell the judge you're going to go on unemployment and medicaid (You can, since you have no income), and they'll quickly re-arrange things to make it worthwhile. Why would a state possibly do this? Going back to your list. Look at the 'protected activities'. Simply being employed in the field is rarely one of them. Yes, you can't take clients or poach employees. Some might require repayment for training, etc. But no one can make you unemployed and destitute for it. Why would any state want that? The key word in many of the tables is 'not against public policy', which is what it means when states don't want people to start taking welfare when not able to work. That being said I am glad states are now pre-emptively fining businesses that attempt to use these. It shouldn't be up to employees ignoring what they presume to be valid contracts.