2 ms·
> We had standard 18-month no-poach restrictions with all of our contractors that specified that those recruiters were not allowed to contact Meebo employees wi
by azakai 14y ago
> We had standard 18-month no-poach restrictions with all of our contractors that specified that those recruiters were not allowed to contact Meebo employees within 18 months of our contract expiring
Whoa, wasn't there just a lawsuit where no-poach deals were determined highly illegal?
- salemh 14y agoMuch different circumstance (more collusion) if you are thinking of the Google/Apple/Intel lawsuit: "Apple, Google, Intel fail to dismiss staff-poaching lawsuit | Reuters" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-apple-poaching-lawsuit-idUSBRE83I0VF20120419 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-apple-poaching-... Or Google: https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+settlement+apple+employee+poach https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=1&source...
- rprasad 14y agoDifferent circumstances, but still illegal in California because it restricts the freedom of employment of Meebo's employees. No-poaching clauses are illegal in California, but poaching clauses can contain "referral fees" under which the poaching company must pay the original employer a substantial amount of money (usually, a year's salary of the employee poached) if they hire one of its employees during or within a year after the end of the contract period.