Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

What's their success record for enforcing them?

In Minnesota, I've had companies twice drag me into court trying to enforce a non-compete and the judge laughed at both companies and I was sent on my way.

The key in both cases was the company I had left was trying to keep me from working in the same field for a competitor. My attorney argued that if I'm "gainfully employable" you can't restrict me from earning a living in my chosen field - to do so would invite economic hardship.

The judge asked if they would rather compensate me for two years at my current salary (which was a six figure salary), or let me go work for their competitor. The company quickly chose the latter.

View on HN

Don't know, as I am in CA. Someone from MA would have to answer this. The reason I won't consider jobs in states where noncompetes are legal is because employers will force them on employees during the hiring process (usually by surprise after the employee has given notice at there previous employer).

Noncompetes would be almost fair if it was required to compensate the employee for the duration of the time it is enforced. In the US, that's rare, but in the EU it not uncommon (gardening leave). In other words, the real underlying reason that noncompetes are used is to limit job-hopping by employees looking for better working conditions or a higher salary, but under the guise of prevent company secrets from being disclosed to a competitor is what is sold to the legislature.

I've worked for 5 companies since I've lived in MA, I've only ever had to sign a single non-compete, over 10 years ago. None of the places I've worked since have had them. I've never met anyone in MA that had one enforced.

Every one of the 4 companies I worked for in MA rolled out the non-compete on the first day of work. Not one of them even mentioned it beforehand.

Sadly, it's just par-for-the-course for being a high-tech employee in MA.

Even if you beat the cases easily, I don't want to face the potential stress and lawyer overhead to adjudicate one. It probably takes a long time to come to a judge. It just sounds bad. So I imagine companies think this will discourage people from moving jobs, even if its not enforceable.

Seems a little weird to avoid 90% of the country for this reason. Why not just ask at the beginning of the interview process? Do you know of cases where a company has lied about their policy until after the candidate has quit their old job?

They may not lie, but they will attempt to dodge the question. You may also be deemed a troublemaker if you probe too much. (Which is probably OK, as you don't want to work in such an environment)

They want the docile job candidate who will sign anything with no questions asked.

I totally understand avoiding companies like that, I just think discounting almost every state because of the possibility of a non-compete is way too extreme. I'm early in my career, but I've never had to deal with a non-compete even though they're legal, and I don't think the behavior you're describing is very common, especially for non-entry-level positions.

In Washington state, all the big companies,medium companies, and startups I have applied to use noncompetes. Amazon, Facebook (I'm pretty sure), google, microsoft, all use noncompetes.

The success record at enforcing them is pretty good, actually. There was a court case some years back enforcing a non-compete and now companies have gotten bolder at going after people. I speak from a little experience, having hired a MA employment lawyer on one of these issues and the non-compete prevented my accepting of either of two job offers.

A particularly egregious case:

http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/06/09/massachusetts...

Good point, in wa state there were non-competes for sandwich shop makers. This is just to keep poor people from having economic opportunity. This is different than keep my recipes secret. This is you can't do minimally trained labor for someone else.

Personally think you dodged a bullet there... Not sure you would be employable after a 2 year hiatus from your industry. I would worry about how the next job interview goes due to the gap and the can of worms opened when explaining matters (if you are dealing with traditional HR).

Would it have been possible to leave the state(MN) and continue to work in your field?

According to this[1], it'll likely be litigated in your state of residence regardless of where your former employer is located.

[1] http://www.crn.com/news/storage/217201071/emc-former-employe...

>> Would it have been possible to leave the state(MN) and continue to work in your field?

I was already planning on it and one of the companies I was in talks with at the time had an out state office I could work at until "the heat" died down so to speak.

You probably need to talk to a lawyer to confirm what I say here, but if you move to CA, the only way you could be sued is if the employer files suit in a non-CA courthouse first, You may be able to file a lawsuit in the CA court system first to invalidate the noncompete. Again, check with a lawyer on this.

Also, read up on Section 16600 in in the California Business and Professions code.

It happens:

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2015/02/19/electric-car-batter...

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/massachusetts-court-defe...

Emergency Motion, Restraining order, Injunction - these are all very exciting for the lawyers involved and gut wrenching for the employees. Usually you have to be a CxO level or salesperson - or do something that makes someone with money really mad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com