Non-Compete Clauses Thrown Out In California 375
drfuchs writes "If you signed an employment agreement in California, any non-compete clause in it is null & (void*), says the state Supreme Court of California (ruling PDF). Better still, the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in line with the decision in the way they interpret California law. (Most other states still have non-compete laws on the books and it's not clear this ruling will affect them.) Turns out it wasn't a high-tech case at all, but a CPA who had worked for the accounting firm Arthur Anderson (now disgraced due to their complicity in the Enron case)."
Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Complicity? How soon we forget! Arthur Anderson is disgraced because when informed of a federal investigation into their complicity with Enron, they immediately shredded all the relevant documents. People only avoided going to jail by claiming they thought shredding documents before a federal investigation was legal. For some reason ignorance of the law is an acceptable accuse for white-collar crimes. Arthur Anderson should have had its corporate charter revoked and those involve should be sitting in jail. It was a travesty of justice that they got away with only a disgracing.
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that having Arther Anderson on your resume would be the disqualifying point.
This makes little sense. Using your logic, working for a failed software firm should disqualify one for further software employment. I would wager that a fair number of the rank and file had no idea what was going on at Enron, even if they were assigned to the case, and do not to deserve to be labeled negatively just because of bad decisions higher in the company.
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Funny)
Using your logic, working for a failed software firm should disqualify one for further software employment.
If you worked on Daikatana, then I would say this should apply, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about if you work on DNF? Does that count as a failure because it's been like 10 years and no release, or does failure wait until it's formally not released?
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you been? Anderson imploded after Enron. The investigators of the Anderson-Enron probe decided to charge Anderson as a COMPANY instead of the 15 or so individuals involved. This triggered a cascade of Major clients leaving Anderson accounting, causing the Big Accounting Five to become the Big Accounting Four.
Thousands of people laid off in Chicago. Besides the direct Anderson workers, the hundreds of supporting companies down to the janitorial level had to layoff thousands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1917598.stm [bbc.co.uk]
It's really easy to say Off-with-their-heads without realizing the post-anarchy of such an action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a way it was the correct action.
The aftermath was a lot of turbulence, but it sure is also a wakeup call to the remaining accounting companies that no one is safe from legal action regardless of size.
Bad business is contagious, just look at the bank problems right now. I'm sure that a lot of accounting companies cleared up their acts very silently after the Enron turbulence.
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, all the firing at AA was matched by hiring elsewhere. It's not like AA's old clients didn't still need accounting services. They just got them from a new corporate structure which got to compete with the other Big 4 to get the best of AA's now-laid-off workers.
Jobs were not lost, overall. They were just moved. Change is part of life, and ongoing change is necessary for most everyone's life to get better.
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really easy to say Off-with-their-heads without realizing the post-anarchy of such an action.
Are you saying that companies should be able to get away with this crap because punishing them would hurt a bunch of people? That's screwed up.
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. Clearly no large companies should ever be punished for malfeasance when so many jobs will be lost as a result. It is obviously entirely inappropriate to hold companies responsible for ensuring that the activities pursued by said companies are carried out in a legal and ethical manner. That would be absurd. I mean, let's not even get in to even more ridiculous things like letting major companies sporting failed business models actually fail when we can just go in there and prop those models up with tax monies!
P.S. Won't somebody please think of the janitors?
P.P.S. It's easy to conveniently "overlook" blatantly unethical practices without realizing the post-anarchy of such an action. (i.e. You're tracing the blame to the wrong end here)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you thought they were a corporation shows that you have done very little to educate yourself about the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
link to Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100491.html [washingtonpost.com]
I had a friend that worked for AA, she was happy to see them finally absolved. Sadly it was too little too late.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was because of ignorance of the law. Exactly like I said. That's an escape that doesn't work for regular crimes. Only white collar workers who cost people millions of dollars get off saying, "I didn't know it was wrong."
Tax evasion and all kinds of other white collar crimes don't require knowledge of the law. Obstruction of justice is a specific crime alleging that you intentionally hindered a criminal investigation, and so requires knowledge of the illegitimacy of your actions. It is not "ignorance o
Re:Disgraced Arthur Anderson (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as I recall Arthur Anderson had their CPA licence revoked (federal and state), they lost all their clients, layed off 85,000 employees and are now just a series of zombie companies which are effectively dead (no clients). W/o a CPA licence and no clients, it's merely a technicality that their corporate charter isn't revoked (the government taskforce noted that it didn't want to waste it's money going the final step given the company was effectively defunct already).
Perhaps you are one of those that probably are miffed that David Duncan (the lead auditor for Enron) isn't sitting in jail. For a while, it seemed like he would be, but the Supreme Court overturned the obstruction of justice conviction of the company. I think this was overturned by the Supreme Court citing among other things it didn't think it was actually illegal to shred documents unless there was a court order preventing it and he had a legal opinion in hand to that effect that backed him up.
Yeah that's probably not justice, but the government didn't think it could win that case either given the laws in effect at that time. Now we have Sarbox, unless you are lobbying for ex-post facto laws, unfortunatly, we'll have to realize that's the problem with a linear time continuum... live and learn.
Re:I bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious difference being, of course, that the Arthur Andersen was shredding to keep themselves out of jail while the ISP is shredding to keep you out of jail.
Re:I bet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, an AC comment that is sane, right, and properly contradicts an AC troll. Mod parent up!
Re:I bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that AA (and any accounting/auditing firm) is supposed to be keeping accurate records for reporting to the public (including 'The Man') whereas we hope the ISPs are protecting our privacy. We denizens of the 'Net are private citizens who have no requirement to report our activities to investors or government (aside from income for tax purposes), but AA must make those reports.
Re:I bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a completely apples to oranges comparison. Destroying logs periodically isn't illegal. Destroying them only becomes illegal if one has been issued a subpoena for them and possibly if one has been informed of a relevant investigation or one expects the other things to be coming. If you're doing any of those things, you're definitely toying with things best not toyed with.
In the case of AA they shredded the documents specifically in response to the investigation. Which would be illegal whether or not they were specifically likely to be charged.
Pointer (Score:5, Funny)
...any non-compete clause in it is null &(void*),...
So what does the address of a void pointer have to do with all this?
Re:Pointer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pointer (Score:5, Funny)
well if it survives the compiler, it's just a glorified memset to 0.
null = 00000000
null &(void*) can be anything
& = bitwise and
so always equals 00000000.
Federal Courts (Score:5, Informative)
Federal courts are obligated, when applying state law, to follow the highest court of the State (though, of course, they can rule that that law is unenforceable because it conflicts with superceding provisions of federal law.)
Null = Void (Score:5, Funny)
Random trivia: I've been told by a professor of law and classicist that "null" and "void" mean the same thing (in a legal sense), but are simply different languages. Putting them together is repetitive and unnecessary, although strangely customary.
I thought that interesting enough to share.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather like "aid and abet" and other legal double-barrelled terms.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean it is redundant and repeats itself?
Re:Null = Void (Score:5, Informative)
I beg to differ. If something is voided, it means whatever it is exists, but is no longer in effect. If something is nullified, it means that whatever is was no longer exists. So declaring it null and void means, that it no longer exists and is no longer in effect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So voiding is like dereferencing a pointer, and nullifying is like releasing memory?
It's the French! (Score:5, Interesting)
This practice dates back to the Norman invasion, when French was the language spoken by the ruling class in otherwise English speaking, er, England :)
During court proceedings, they'd use both languages, the tradition caught on and stayed with us through common law terminology. So now you have null and void, aiding and abetting, assault and battery, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. That's interesting.
Incidentally, assault and battery are traditionally (and even moreso nowadays) different creatures. I vaguely recall that the old common law versions of the crimes are as follows:
Assault: The reasonable apprehension of harm.
Battery: Non-consensual touching.
Hence, in the old criminal sense, you can assault someone without touching them (i.e. swinging a bat at them), and you can batter them without them being afraid of harm (i.e. a doctor touching an unconscious patient
Not a Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
And anyone who has ever worked in California is surprised by this because...?
It's pretty well-known that California law does not allow non-compete clauses in employment contracts. Here, the California State Supreme Court ruled that the law says what is says.
I'd be more interested in finding out if it is true that states with "Right-to-Work" laws also forbid non-compete clauses as part of their "right to work" laws. I heard that once, but do not know if it is correct. I've heard it said that a company has a hard time enforcing a non-compete clause in a Right-to-Work state.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but I don't think that's generally true. Virginia is a right-to-work state and I've worked for several employers there that had non-compete clauses in their employment contracts. My guess is that the right-to-work affects how restrictive the non-competes be, depending on your line of work.
Re:Not a Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
That's part of it, of course. But there's another side of the issue: they can scare potential employers into not hiring someone who has signed such an agreement. If former employer A finds out that Joe Shmo is applying for a job at Company B, all it takes is a friendly phone call from A to B mentioning that that Joe is a former employee who has signed a non-compete agreement, and that A views B as a competitor. I saw this happen back in the day when corporations actually considered software people to have strategic significance. B would have to balance their desire to hire Joe against the potential costs of a lawsuit by A...and they'd have to want Joe an awful lot to take that risk. This would have nothing to do with the validity of the agreement—it's just a matter of having to spend money for lawyers to defend against the lawsuit.
Another factor is the related—but legally distinct—issue of non-disclosure. If you've signed a non-disclosure agreement with an employer, then go to work for another employer who is in the same line of business, there's a risk that you and your new employer may get sued because you failed to forget all you learned at your previous job.
Re: (Score:2)
Virginia is most certainly NOT a right-to-work state. It is an at-will employment [lawyers.com] state.
From the linked article:
Re: (Score:2)
Its a potential surprise to some people because, in the absence of ultra-clear guidance from the California Supreme Court, some courts interpreting California law in employment cases, notably the federal courts in CA and the Ninth Circuit, have applied the prohibition on contracts which restrain the practice of a profession more narrowly (for the most part, the state courts seem to have ruled consistently with the broad interpretat
Proceed with caution (Score:3, Interesting)
There's probably going to be someone who interprets that as including NDAs instead of just "non-compete" clauses. That could seriously complicate things when a domain expert hops to a new place and the new employer wants inside info.
Even if the NDA issue is covered, employers better be sure they have NDAs in place NOW.
Inevitable disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
There's probably going to be someone who interprets that as including NDAs instead of just "non-compete" clauses.
The doctrine connecting non-disclosure agreements to covenants not to compete is called inevitable disclosure [ivanhoffman.com].
Non-Compete Clauses Thrown Out In California (Score:4, Informative)
> ...the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in
> line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
Of course they will. The California Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on California law.
> Most other states still have non-compete laws on the books...
No. They do not have anti-non-compete laws on the books.
> ...and it's not clear this ruling will affect them.
It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if Federal law were to follow California law (which it may or may not do), then that would supposedly render moot (mootify?) any non-compete clauses anywhere else in the US.
Its not quite so clear and depends on conflict of laws principles. Under the Erie doctrine [wikipedia.org] a federal court (with diversity jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]) applies the substantive law (not procedural) of the state in which it sits. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. extended the Erie doctrine to a state's conflict of laws [wikipedia.org] rules (the case found that conflict of laws rules were substantive and not procedural). Thus, the California decision only has extraterritorial effect if the state where the federal court sits would apply
Re: (Score:2)
> It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
Not completely true. It is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of rulings from other jurisdictions that they are not technically bound by. Good examples are courts attempting to interpret potentially-ambiguous clauses of law common to multiple states (think Uniform Commercial Code), particularly if those clauses have not been commonly-reviewed in the state they're in.
This of course is a more speciali
Re: (Score:2)
Not an easy question, but best guess is that the company with which the non-compete was signed is probably screwed either way.
In the former case (getting a job in California), it likely winds up in Federal court due to diversity of citizenship, and the court notes that as a matter of public policy, such contracts are unenforceable in California. The original company is probably screwed.
In the latter, of getting a job outside of California having signed a non-compete in California, it is likely that the issu
Re: (Score:2)
But why would California law be applied? The contract was executed outside of California and pertained to acts performed (presumably) primarily outside of California; the fact that a party later became a citizen of California may allow federal diversity jurisdiction, but doesn't seem to re
Misunderstands the Federal System (Score:4, Informative)
Better still, the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
This sentence reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the US Federal system operates. In matters of interpreting State laws and constitutions, the State court system has the final say. Federal courts have no authority to independently interpret State laws and constitutions once the State Supreme Court has spoken; they have to take State rulings as uninterpretable "fact". The exceptions are quite limited, and involve preemption by Federal law and disputes under the US Constitution.
In this case, if there are no implicated Federal Statutes, the Federal Courts have to abide by the holdings of the State Supreme Court decision, whether they like it or not.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Hahaha score one for C (Score:5, Funny)
Those smug Java-bastards will no doubt be scratching their collective heads now - hahaha, you wish you had a void* now huh?
The only job left for you in the future will be collecting garbage!
(I think I can see the humorless trolls circling already ;-) )
The Only Way To Enforce Non-Compete (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right, as in "you are perfectly free not to sign this contract, but unfortunately we then won't employ you , oh and by the way all the other firms in this industry have similar contracts, so in fact your choice is sign or never work again".
The reason you have to have laws protecting employees is that employers otherwise have such a position of strength that no fair contracts are feasible.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you have to have laws protecting employees is that employers otherwise have such a position of strength that no fair contracts are feasible.
Especially when you consider the irrational American hatred of unions, collective bargaining, and collective action in general.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work in a union shop. The job was a lot of fun until we went union, but just sucked afterwards (in fairness I have to mention that I knew we were going union when I took the job).
* Before we went union, I was working 4x10s (by choice). After going union, "I'm sorry...that's not an approved work schedule. You'll have to work 5x8s."
* After going union, my pay check actually went down, even though the union promised us no loss in pay (they negotiated a slight salary increase to offset the union dues, but calculated the pay increase pre-tax; after subtracting taxes and union dues, I lost about $100/month).
* Before going union, we were free to adjust our schedules as needed to accomplish after hours work or to take time off for personal errands. After going union, we had six fixed schedules to provide 24 hour coverage.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
What really pissed most of us off is that pretty much every one of these points were things that we told the union not to change when we were negotiating union membership. They promised us it wouldn't change, and well, they lied.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have a sucky union.
You can take action.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And don't forget - they also want to make sure that they get member fees and therefore activates blockades against competition from out of country companies where the workers may have a different union.
Like when Polish construction companies comes to Sweden and works.
Even competition between unions within the same country/state can be a cause for blockades.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not irrational, its well programmed. Mega conglomerates have spent A LOT of money making villains out of unions and organized labor. So much focus has been placed on the few down sides of unions that very few people from the under 30 and under generations can fathom the positive effects of unions.
As for those employment contracts with "non-compete" clauses in them it is pretty silly. Everyone in my industry uses them (I'm stuck in one right now). Unless you have some very specific and very highly valued niche skill, 90% of people in the industry cannot find a job without giving into these stupid agreements. Its either sign it, or go to another industry. I doubt that this type of crap would be welcomed in most other industries.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:4, Interesting)
My disagreement of unions stems from two very specific instances. One, when I was in high school, I was paid less than I could/should have been because the union capped the wages of teenage employees to secure better wages for adult employees. Further, this was after the promise of an x% raise every six months. They only explained the cap to me after 18 months, when I was supposed to be getting my third raise and didn't. I can understand why, but frankly, it was detrimental to me and I hold a grudge. Two, my grandfather relates a story from when my father was a child of an anonymous caller threatening violence to his children (my aunt and father) because he planned on voting against unionization of his shop.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Mega conglomerates have spent A LOT of money making villains out of unions and organized labor.
That's pretty easy when you see the jack-assery they pull. For example, I once had to sit around for 6 hours waiting for a union mover to pick up my PC and carry it up one flight of stairs. Well, I was supposed to wait, anyway; I got tired of sitting around and did it myself.
What really drives the younger generation's distaste is that we've seen their unreasonableness broadcast in all its glory. GM losing billions of dollars? Perfect time to strike for a pay raise! GM needs to close a factory to stay afloat? Sue them to keep it open! Most of us realize that companies operate on finite budgets and can't afford to pay out more than they take in. I don't know if union leadership is stupid enough not to grasp the subtlety, or if they simple don't care. Either way, they've earned their own reputation.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:4, Interesting)
At that point, I reminded him that he's the greatest benefactor of that. Without the unions, his high level of absenteeism and his productivity on the job would guarantee that his wages remained sorely behind those of his colleagues.
Here's an example: he told me that they have random drug tests, and that while he was clean and knew he'd always pass, he always took the opportunity to get paid for doing nothing. He'd tell them that he didn't have to go, and at that point, they put him in a waiting room with a pot of coffee and magazines to wait. He couldn't leave, because they had to be sure he wasn't getting someone else's pee. He politely refused the coffee and sat there for as much as eight hours--collecting overtime in some cases--and holding his bladder for as long as he possibly could, just to be an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
In my mind Unions can be useful to ensure that workers are not exploited by their employers; and gathering the resources to fight any violation of labour laws for as long as it takes.
However, when a Union become instruments of political power they can sometimes lose their direction. Becoming a hindrance for efficiency or continued evolution within the workplace.
I
"Irrational Hatred of Unions" (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially when you consider the irrational American hatred of unions, collective bargaining, and collective action in general
Here we go again. If it's a liberal issue Americans support, they're a great, wise, and noble people. If they're against a liberal issue, well, then Americans are just stupid.
Irrational? Ask GM, Ford, and airlines about it (Score:3, Interesting)
And if
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything that unions were formed to do (wages, overtime, safety, etc.) were signed into law decades ago (minimum wage, 40hr work week, OSHA). Unions now seem to exist solely to squeeze as much money out of a company for as little work as possible (thus driving US industries into the ground), all the while making the union bosses richer and more powerful.
And I tire of the people that think I should support unions today because of what they did decades ago. You might as well argue that we should still support and pay abolitionist because, you know, they helped end slavery. Never mind the fact that slavery has been illegal for over a century now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That same logic works the other way around. If the workers banded together in the same way the companies did in your example, the companies would have no employees. Neither side has more power than the other - the difference is that one side is more organized than the other. It is easier to get a majority of evil CEOs to do the evil thing, than to get a majority of individuals to do the right thing.
Now, this example won't apply to everyone, but I was faced with a non-compete clause with an employer, and
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah right, as in "you are perfectly free not to sign this contract, but unfortunately we then won't employ you , oh and by the way all the other firms in this industry have similar contracts, so in fact your choice is sign or never work again".
Every company I've worked for has had no problems amending employment contracts if there are legitimate concerns about them. Even really big government contractors and the like are, in my experience, quite reasonable about making changes to those contracts if you present them with a reasonable justification for the changes (though sending changes up through the legal department often takes a bit more time).
Too many people just assume when the contract is plopped in front of them that it's not open to negotiation. In reality, most companies aren't overtly out to get you, and are more than willing to listen to reasonable suggestions if you just take the time to make them in a polite, rational manner. Indeed, many times these sorts of stipulations are just part of some boilerplate contract and not something the company has really given much thought to.
I've changed contracts that:
1. Wanted ownership of all code and patents I developed while in their employ. I pointed out that I do open-source development and had the section explicitly changed to note that anything I developed on my own time outside of the office was my property (so long as it didn't disclose company secrets).
2. Wanted my indemnification that none of my code violated any patents and I'd be liable for the penalties if it did. I pointed out that this was unreasonable given my assets as a solo consultant and the monetary value of the job in question, and had it changed to guarantee that none of my code knowingly violated patents and indemnify them against any patents I held personally.
3. Stated that I could not work as a software developer for another company while in their employ. This is almost certainly unenforceable anyway, but I explained that I was coming to them as a consultant and would have other jobs contemporaneously; they struck the section entirely.
I'm sure there are more. (1) in particular has happened several times, and (2) has happened at least twice.
But the point is, you can negotiate most contracts as long as your requests are reasonable. If you can't, that's probably a warning sign that the company is going to be unreasonable in other areas.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Some things are unconscionable; like signing yourself into slavery, signing away your rights, etc.
Your right to work is therefore one of those things you cannot sign away, and thus this ruling.
Just because you are forced to agree to a contract in order to gain employment does not mean the contract is right or enforceable.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:4, Insightful)
Force is what is used when your life is threatened. When you cannot work without such a contract, your life is threatened because you will not be able to feed yourself. It means exactly what he thought it meant, and he was right.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed if a contract in anyway disables you from working in the future it should not be accepted as legal.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For example, allowing contracts to specify that an employee who leaves one company may not then divulge that company's confidential information and trade secrets to the ex-employee's new employer is perfectly reasonable.
But in that case, it's not a prohibition against working for a former competitor, it's a prohibition on abusing privileged access. If that prohibition prevents an ex-employee from taking certain jobs with ex-competitors, that's just too bad, but th
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:4, Informative)
I'll agree that he overstated his case...but then so did you. Force is involved. Not life-threatening, at least not immediately (usually), but still, force.
What would you call it if a miner was told he had to work in an unsafe environment without air filters? Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that force of some sort must be used to get him to agree to put his life in danger in a very uncomfortable environment? Yet such is common.
To claim that no force is involved in contract negotiations is ludicrously unreasonable. To ask what amount of force is fair is reasonable.
To my mind, a non-compete agreement is unreasonable unless the company is willing to pay you your prior wage for the entire duration of the non-compete.
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
Another nutty ruling.. if you willingly sign a contract that contained a non-complete clause, that's your issue with the company you should fight for.
But wacky judges just says these are no good.
Actually, the judges are saying you can't enforce contractual language that violates CA Law.
You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable; but that clearly isn't the case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable
You mean like the standard corporate email signature? The one that says that if you receive this in error, you are required to destroy it, destroy all copies of it and notify the sender of their error? I mean THAT is enforceable right? Even if I have a corporate policy of retaining all emails sent and received.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable ...
Yes, a logical person might indeed think that and thus not challenge the language when it was applied to him/her or as an earlier AC said,
if you willingly sign a contract that contained a non-complete clause, that's your issue with the company you should fight for.
I once worked for a company that included such language in all of its contracts and was amazed at how many people didn't fight it when they were ready to move on.
Also, the degree to which these clauses are enforced in a given jurisdiction often turns on the reasonableness of the restriction. If you were hired to do only a specific type of work in a specified geograp
Re:Peoples Republic Of California (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable; but that clearly isn't the case.
Why not? It's called "Let's see what we can get away with", how many employees are really aware of their rights and willing to fight for them in a potential lawsuit? Most would rather avoid the issue, thus fulfilling the purpose for the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Another nutty post... If you willingly put a provision into your employment contract that is illegal under state law, that's your issue with the legislature you should fight for.
But wacky internet trolls just says these laws are no good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you willingly sign a contract that contained a non-complete clause . . .
On the other hand, if the company willingly offers a contract they know cannot be enforced because of provisions that are specifically illegal, that's perfectly OK, eh?
This isn't new or obscure law. Non-compete clauses have been unenforcable in California for a long time. The company knew this when they wrote that boilerplate contract, and chose to break the law.
Amerikkka Homeland (Score:3, Informative)
You speak of free contracts between labor and companies, but you don't speak of the laws business has put on the books. Such as the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. It allows states to forbid companies and unions to agree to contracts that a union will exclusively provide labor to a company. So a private company can sign an exclusive agreement with another company, but a union can't. A union can't have a secondary boycott - meaning they can't refuse to say handle packages delivered to businesses still doing bu
Wacky? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it is "wacky" for a judge to see a law that's been on the books for 136 years that says "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void" (Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, as cited in the ruling) and conclude that it invalidates contracts which would restrain someone from engaging in a specific lawful profession, trade, or business, and which don't fall into one of the specified exceptions included in the same chapter of the law?
That seems to me a strange idea of what is "wacky".
You can't sign yourself into slavery. (Score:4, Insightful)
Contracts can't violate laws.
It's amazing non-compete held up for as long as it did. A contract that tells you what you can or can't do outside of your employment is obviously flawed. With the economy going in the shitter, people are going to be pushing back harder against clauses that keep them from working and both state and federal courts are going to be receptive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure about CA, but here in the state of WA, it's almost certainly not a breach of contract to violate it in this sort of instance.
One of the requirements for a breach is that it not be a result of the normal course of business or a reasonably predictable outcome of the business. (I'm paraphrasing there) I don't believe that anybody in their right mind would consider the AA meltdown to be foreseeable by anybody not actually involved in the cover up, and certainly not by people who didn't do it severa
Re:Thats right, TRAIN me bitches, then I'm gone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't seem fair to me
What doesn't seem fair to me is the notion that companies can terminate an employment contract and expect provisions of that terminated contract to continue to be in effect, but hey, when was the last time anyone seriously thought the legal system was "fair"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thats right, TRAIN me bitches, then I'm gone! (Score:5, Insightful)
What doesn't seem fair to me is the notion that companies can terminate an employment contract and expect provisions of that terminated contract to continue to be in effect, but hey, when was the last time anyone seriously thought the legal system was "fair"?
You mean all of the provisions, like confidentiality agreements and such? I don't think you've thought through what you're asking for...
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe you have some kind of "employment contract", you are wrong. Ever single document I have seen from an employer since around 1980 states specifically that "this is not a contract for employment".
Maybe the CEO/COO has an employment contract. You don't.
Aside from that, if you signed an employment contract with survivable terms in it then it is likely valid. Except in California now, perhaps. If you are fired for cause there might be some way out of this, but it is going to depend on more than
Re: (Score:2)
Not just now in California. It's been that way for a while. The judge just reaffirmed what everyone already knew.
Here is an example: (Score:2)
But, once someone is up to speed in MOSS, they can write their ticket nationwide, leaving their former employer to pound sand, having just put out thousands in training fees.
You dont have to be very high up in a corp
Re: (Score:2)
So the correct employment clause is.. "You must pay us back for training if you leave within X months of taking said training" This is fair and legal afaik.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, SharePoint 2007 MOSS and WSS is literally exploding in the marketplace. Companies are taking their
But, once someone is up to speed in MOSS, they can write their ticket nationwide, leaving their former employer to pound sand, having just put out thousands in training fees.
You dont have to be very high up in a corporat
Re: (Score:2)
You have a certain skillset and receive a certain wage based on the fact that you have those skills.
Company wants you to have more skills, so they pay for training.
You now have a better skill set and are more valuable.
The last part, though, where you abandon the company that trained you, only comes about when the company wants to continue paying you as though your value is that of your old skill set while having you do more valuable work based on your new skill set.
If the company pays you fair-market r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No... conservative justices are more likely to defer to state law since it's not a federal matter. Liberal justices are more likely to claim "interstate commerce" or "general welfare" give them the responsibility to decide what's best. Eg: California medical marijuana.
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
Which three? Name them, please. Thomas and Scalia are well established as Sates' Rights crusaders. Roberts and Alito are fairly new to the Court, so they don't have as much history to go on, but Alito is pretty similar to Scalia in his constitutional ideology. Roberts seems to be more of a practical conservative (though I'd like to see your evidence that he is an unprincipled corporate shill), but even the Chief still only counts for one vote. And Kennedy hardly counts as a conservative.
Remember, in K
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
No ... state court interpretations of state law are unreviewable by the federal courts in the absence of preempting federal law. The US Supreme Court can't overturn a state court ruling determined on state law grounds ... they don't even have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in those cases. This is at the heart of our federal legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at it the other way: where do you think you're going to find experienced employees if they're all bound by non-compete agreements not to work for you?