"saying the regulator lacked the authority to stop agreements that bar employees from getting new jobs at rival firms."
Who said that employers had the authority to tell ex employees what to do to begin with ?
Who said that employers had the authority to tell ex employees what to do to begin with ?
I mean, you can't just put whatever you want in a contract. It's never worked that way. Not to mention that employees often can't amend contracts, and they can't say no either. In some industries it's impossible to find a job without a non-compete.
At that point, it's not an agreement, its coercion.
They either are contracts with all the requirements of being a contract (agreement, consideration, etc..), or they are nothing.
Courts can, and regularly do, find certain parts of a contract are unreasonable and won't be enforced. Doesn't matter if both parties understood and agreed. Just because something is a contract doesn't mean it's really for real!
which this was going to do...
Non-competes for anyone below director level is beyond useless and simply an abuse of employees.
AND as long as it's reasonable and well-understood. If I put something ridiculous in there, like "you can't ever work again after this", that doesn't fly.
Let's say this was marriage, and you had people requiring spouses sign a "noncompete agreement" with marriage, so that the person, upon divorce, agrees not to date or marry anyone else within a certain distance, which amounts to hundreds of miles.
Is there really any question that that would not be an enforceable contract?
It doesn't seem any different to me legally.
It might also seem extreme but I also don't see how this doesn't violate the 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude. You're not working for the employer, but you are in effect providing some labor benefit to them against your will, without compensation.