'I signed a noncompete – but now I want a new job'
Is a court likely to uphold a restrictive noncompete agreement? It depends on where you live.
Ryan H. from Fort Wayne, Ind.
When I started my current job, I signed a noncompete agreement without really reading it. After reading it in full, I discovered that it sounds like they're trying to keep me out of the entire Web design industry, anywhere in the U.S., for two years after leaving. I am looking for a new job right now – should I be worried about this? Would a judge ever uphold such a sweeping contract, in spite of my signature on it?
By Kathleen Ryan O’Connor, CNNMoney.com contributor
A business has the right to protect its intellectual property, but the terms must be reasonable. Unfortunately for employees looking for clarity on their noncompete deals, what counts as “reasonable” is often left up to a judge’s discretion.
On your side is the current legal trend against overly broad noncompete agreements. California courts, where Silicon Valley litigation over top tech talent often ends up, have led the charge by effectively making such covenants unenforceable. The most high-profile recent case was that of Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, a former Microsoft IT executive whom Google hired away in 2005 despite a one-year noncompete agreement. The two software giants battled it out in California courts all year, until a private settlement was reached.
To find out about issues that might be specific to your geographic area, we spoke to Sam Hasler, an attorney in Anderson, Ind.
“Let’s assume they do business in the Marion County,” Hasler says of your former company. If you try to serve clients in the same area before your agreement runs out, having a lawyer at the ready is a wise move.
“I know people hate hearing that, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” he says.
But if you are trying to establish a relationship with a client in, say, New York, and your previous employer has never done business there, you have a very strong argument for a judge that preventing you from pursuing that work is simply punitive.
For workers thinking of using the soft job market as a catalyst to fly solo and launch their own business, are noncompetes an obstacle? A group of academic researchers studying the issue say there's some evidence that their use inhibits entrepreneurship.
"It’s the chilling effect," says Matt Marx, a doctoral student in business administration at Harvard. Very few companies actually take former workers to court over the agreements, but simply having them in place can discourage ex-employees from launching new ventures. “They think, 'I better play it safe. There is no upside for you; you have to protect yourself.'”
Marx and two co-authors published a 2007 study examining commerce in Michigan before and after the 1985 repeal of a state law barring noncompete agreements. By studying investors' patent records, they found a significant drop in employment mobility after the state began enforcing noncompetes.
The issue is a personal one for Marx, an active inventor in the speech recognition field.
Before embarking on his Ph.D., he worked at a Boston company and was bound by a noncompete agreement when he was recruited by another firm. Because the new employer was in California, he was able to disregard the contract. But, in an ironic twist, when Marx returned to Boston years later to attend business school, his original employer wanted to hire Marx as a consultant but couldn't because of his concern that Massachusetts courts would enforce the noncompete deal that the California company had Marx sign.
“You have California at one extreme and then you have a bunch of states at another extreme,” says Lee Fleming, a Harvard professor and one of Marx's co-authors. He and Marx believe businesses would be better served by ditching noncompetes and focusing their energy on enforcing covenants that specifically protect trade secrets.
The researchers hope the economic pressures of the recession will help weaken noncompetes. Companies are laying off workers en masse but insisting that those workers respect their noncompete deals, they say. That's a hard position to defend.
“Is that reasonable?” Fleming asks. “Do we really want to prevent [job seekers] from getting work where they can be productive?”
Give us your advice: Check out recent “Ask & Answer” questions.
correct… I don't know why these attorneys got the panties in a bunch over this clause. Plus courts favor employees over employers.
Daniel from Middletown NJ is correct. There is a huge difference between a non-compete clause and a non-solicitation clause. A company can not prevent somebody from making a living but they can restrict them from soliciting customers and employees. I disagree that poaching fellow former employees is protected by the first amendment. Sure, they have a right to speak with them, but they don't have the write to solicit them for employment with the new firm. These two issues are contradictory to each other. The other point I have not seen raised is a plaintiff employer enforcing a non-compete or non-solicitation is hard pressed to prove an amount of recoverable damages and will most likely spend more money defending the case at which point the harassment of the previous employee could become an issue but how does the employee then prove damages of harassment… I thought in order to win money in a law suite you have to prove damages, no? Or is enforcing the clause only for the purposes of preventing the possible future loss of potential business? You can see what that this clause is weak but in some cases my be strongly applicable and damages very easy to prove.
The comments seem to be a little one sided. Non competes do serve a purpose. Is it fair for a company to spend money and time to train an employee and grant that employee access to proprietary information only for that employee to turn around and use that as leverage to get another job? The article mentions the chill effect on employee mobility, but what about the chill that will result if non-competes cant be enforced. Guess what, I'm not goning to hire anyone. I'll have to resort to nepotism, because I'll have to hire people I can trust if I cant contractually bind them. These non-compete agreements are mutually agreed to by the employee and employer. Nobody has a gun to the employees head forcing them to sign. If they dont like it, find a job elsewhere. But if you do sign it, then you have agreed to abide by that legal obligation. If you didnt read it before signing it, thats just stupid on your part.
The potential future can't be sued for simply hiring someone.
A potential future employer could be sued for making use of proprietary information, however.
This is most common in sales, where a salesperson brings customer contact lists and such with them, or in engineering/software development, where design information with them to a new employer. A new employer who knowingly makes use of such information puts themselves at risk.
That lawsuit against the employee is rubbish. A counter-suit is in order for harassment and abuse of process. The station was trying to stop the reporter from practicing her profession.
Absolutely not Billy. Since your employer broke the employment contract with you by not paying you, an employment contract you signed with them is voided by the employer's failure to fulfill it. Furthermore, since the non-compete is a "nasty one" it is almost certainly unenforceable on its face, since it prevents you from practicing in your profession.
I had to quit my job because my employer missed payroll on a regular basis. We were notified that we were not getting paid until payday. After we left, our employer started to threaten us to sue us if we break the non-compete which it turned out to be a very nasty one. Can one consider the non-compete invalid since the employer broke the employment contract by not paying us on time to begin with?
Your argument becomes stronger if your new job would be your sole means of support — that is you were unemployed or about to be laid off. What about talking to your employer about your job and try to improve your current situation, maybe even renegotiate your noncompete agreement? Is the only reason you want a new job is become of this agreement? If so, I think that it would make it harder for you to win in court.
Some have commented that 'poaching' former fellow employees can be protected by a 'non-compete' agreement. Again, utter nonsense. That is a constitutional right to free speech violation. Can't be enforced in a US State.
Non-compete 'agreements' really go against the grain of America's founding. Essentially, you are attempting to accomplish a 'restraint of trade' upon an individual. Who is a company to tell someone that they cannot practice their craft? That is simply nonsense. I have been in the IT field for almost two decades and during that time have consulted several attorneys in multiple states and they have all told me the same basic thing. Unless you are taking a 'client list', a piece of physical or intellectual property, or attempting some form of patent/copyright infringement a 'non-compete' is basically un-enforceable in a US state.
I have signed many noncompete agreements and every time the employer has tried to enforce them I just say "Go for it" and that usually ends it. I flat out told my last employer that if they wanted to lay me off then I would be starting my own gig and that all customers were fair game. Things are going pretty good. Even if the previous employer tried to enforce it there is really not much they can do about it. They can sue but when it comes down to it, it's their word against your word. He said, she said and unless they have physical proof that you are biting into their business they haven’t much of a case. You only need a lawyer if a case against you can be proven.
If you get laid off your noncompete should be discarded. If you leave on your own, it should be enforced.
Though non compete agreements seem innocuous, it is best to get it reviewed by a lawyer prior to signing. Trust me it is worth the few hundred bucks. Some of the legalese terms that are used may be too restrictive
We run a web design company in new york and have encountered this situation many times in the past. The most that can be reasonably protected or enforced is sales/marketing to existing customers, soliciting employees to change companies, working for a competitor in the same city, or advertising in the same print publication or to the same mailing list. We've found that judges will not enforce unreasonable agreements that attempt to prevent someone from continuing their profession or career.
most non competes are only valid if they keep you. From my understanding, if they fire you, then they break the contract… if you quit, well then you are screwed… for lack of a better term. But you did say leaving- so it sounds like you quit, or are going to, but just look for ways that they did not obligate their end of the deal.
First, remember that each state is a bit different. Second, the primary problem with non-competes is that even if they will not be enforced, threatened enforcement and litigation expenses is enough to keep a company from hiring a new employee. Third, preventing employees from pursuing their greatest worth hurt everyone.
The distance of the non compete area has to be reasonable say like a 100 miles other wise they are trying to make you stop making a living which is against the law.Also you cannot solicit the customers of the party you contracted with.
A minimum of 50% of your total compensation should be paid for consideration by your former employer for the duration of the non compete.
I agree with this. A company should not have a right to control ones option to better themselves.In addittion a non compete should not be allowed at the time for employeement. This clearly gives the upper hand to the employer in terms of salary and other benefits, almost "indentured servant" status.
What if your employer just puts up the money, it is your prior contacts, your relationships, and your the skill and product (Medical). Then the same company opens up a competing store, within the non compete zone, but says you cant leave unless you work outside that same zone for 2 years.
Businesses in Texas have used noncompete agreements agressively, here is one situation from the year 2000.
http://weeklywire.com/ww/07-17-00/austin_pols_feature2.html
I disagree. A non-competition agreement is between a person and his/her employer. The individual's hypothetical next employer is not a party to the agreement, so cannot be sued.
As a partner with a large search firm, we see these covenants frequently. Most, not all, but most non competes are difficult to enforce after a one year time frame. Secondly, the past employer must be able to show harm to their business or clients if they are going to battle this in court. Stay away from their core business and active client base and chances are better you will be left alone.
I had fallen into one of these bogus contracts a few years ago. The consulting company I was working for tried to bar me from being hired from another company even when my contract was ending! They threatened to go to court and file an injunction, blah blah blah. No judge in his or her right mind would uphold these types of contracts and I do believe that they're now illegal in some states. I ended up telling the company that held the remainder of my contract that I quit and went to work for another firm anyway. Criminals…
When I signed a non-compete, it was in exchange for getting an extended set of severence benefits, including salary extensions, above and beyond what the company was legally bound to pay me. It is my understanding that in most, if not all, states that enforce non-competes, the company has to present something of value in exchange for the employee signing it. So we all have the choice to set a value on our services to the competition. And it is negotiable. The one time I was asked to sign one, I found the definition of the industry to be overly broad. I asked them to insert one extra adjective that narrowed it down, and both parties came away satisfied.
Cn the same rule of thumb be applied to "right to work" states , like Texas?
IIRC Texas does not uphold non-compete agreement.
I would seek a lawyer's advice before breaking a non-compete in Texas. Just because you signed it in Texas, doesn't mean you didn't agree to have the case heard in Delaware. Always read the fine print.
If a company lays you off, my belief is that you 'owe' them nothing. Besides, they are no longer paying for your 'expertise'. If you were so critical, so valuable, then why did they throw you away? Even if you leave voluntarily, they had the option of 'paying' more to keep you. This is capitalism, it's what they depend on, why can't we as employees?
"What ever the market will bear" LOL
I think this article misses a major point. Former employers don't need to go after the employee, they go after the new employer.
Most companies will fold in the face of a lawsuit, unless you are EXTREMELY valuable.
This makes you virtually un-employable.
In PA there is generally a 15 mile limit because it is public policy for people to work, not for them collect unemployment benefits. However if there is a customer list that has customers all over and you have it, then it is harder, but not impossible to prevent enforcement. What one knows is a major issues especially in sales. Also any contract requires "consideration" in PA that's not if you don't sign it you don't work here!
Non-compete agreements are just another way for Corporate America to control the American people. Why should they have the right to tell me I can't take a job if the other company is offering me more money? It is disgraceful that a country like our allows such nonsense. Start governing for the people and not for big business.
Ryan H. –
We are in search of a talented web designer and have hired people in the past with previous non-competes. I'd love to talk with you about your design skills & non-compete. If interested please give me a call or send me an email.
TK
Aptera
http://www.apterainc.com
I understand that employers are worried about loosing their trained workforce that is also informed about many of their trade secrets. On the other hand, if employees are laid off or significantly furloughed, their right to earn a living in their field of expertise should trump employers' concerns and non-competes.
IIRC Texas does not uphold non-compete agreement. Move down here if you have problems
Mainly, from what I understand, companies do this so that you don't accidentally (or intentionally) pass your new employer knowledge/information/processes that you learned at their place. This could lead to your new employer gaining an advantage…
Correct me if I'm wrong though.
-
Detroit's churches are plowing millions into redeveloping local housing and businesses. More
-
Winepod attracted a wait list of eager buyers and millions from investors. Then came the recession. More
-
As other major banks withdrew, Wells Fargo stepped up its small business lending. More
-
Designer Chuck Comeau set up his manufacturing in Plainville -- 240 miles away from a major airport. More
-
As staffs shrink, business owners are taking on support duties they haven't had to handle in years. More









My previous employer is in MA where I did sign a non-compete agreement, but I live in California where non-compete agreements are void.
I know this means I can work in CA, but does it also mean I can work in any other state because I live in CA?