Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon291 | Hacker News Reader

Non-competes are almost always unenforceable. Never take money (although even then, they're still mostly useless), and just ignore them and no one is going to do anything. That was what my business law professor taught us. No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently wealthy.

In other words, a completely useless scare tactic.

View on HN

The problem is it won't get as far as trial, if the old company gets wind of it early enough (and they often do). The old company will reach out to the new company and politely inform them they believe they have grounds for a noncompete suit. The new company will either indemnify the worker, or (far more often) drop them as not worth the hassle, and take their #2 choice.

The legislation needs to change. The situation as it stands is ripe for barratry and bullying.

You may not even get as far as an interview. More and more, I see job applications asking whether you are subject to non-competes, alongside asking about visa etc. I imagine answering yes will unceremoniously move your application to the reject pile.

It just means your start date is delayed. No different from interviewing a student whose graduation date is a year away or interviewing a foreigner who might require a few months of paperwork to get a work visa.

Most non-competes are at least 6 months but usually more than a year, and I have never worked in a company that was open to hiring someone with a start date that far in the future. Plus, the clock wouldn't even start running until they leave their job, so if you hire them for a start day in 12 months, they have to quit now and spend their savings. I have never met someone who was open to doing that. I am sure it could happen in very rare circumstances, but most jobs would be closed to most people with non-competes. I am glad that I live in a jurisdiction that doesn't allow them anymore.

That’s not at all my experience. I remember back in the college days every single company on campus was willing to interview students in fall knowing that they would graduate next summer. That’s at least 9 or 10 months of waiting. Because if a company waits until spring, all the best students already have offers and aren’t on the market any more.

> they have to quit now and spend their savings

Every single job offer I’ve seen with a non-compete is a paid non-compete. You get 100% of your base salary and zero bonus. In industries where non-competes are common, people know this. They have savings to deal with reduced income due to zero bonus. There’s a reason why the non-compete period is colloquially known as garden leave. You have enough savings so that you can literally work on your garden. Companies know they need to be patient and plan for hiring needs far in advance. It’s super predictable.

For most tech jobs with non-competes in the US, the non-compete is unpaid. Which is different than other industries such as finance.

Same here in Canada. I have had three non-competes in my career, none of which were paid. All of them were probably unenforceable if it went to trial, but I would have never gotten that far in the hiring pipeline. I instead opted to switch industries and move to a jurisdiction that doesn't allow non-competes.

I know at least one person who joined a Michigan startup, moved over, got sued by non compete, and the new employer just didnt want any hassle and laid them off. This person had to leave country then.

The take home is dont take tech jobs in states where non-compete clauses are still legal.

Sue them back. Represent yourself. Get compensatory damages. They will lose unless you can support yourself. Do you think any state is going to let someone go on unemployment and withdraw from the public dole just because some private company wants to gain some competitive advantage. Lol

But I do agree in general, never take compensation upon leaving a company, for whatever reason. Then everything is certainly unenforceable.

As for leaving the country... even if a non-compete is found to be enforceable (due to you being self-sufficient, or sufficently compensated), then the scope cannot be country wide. It has to be limited to a particular reasonable geography and a particular reasonable field.

> No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently wealthy.

The first part is probably usually true, because places where non-competes are enforceable generally will not enforce them if they are overly broad.

But for tech workers there are almost always other jobs that the worker can qualify for and pay similarly to their old job but are not covered by the non-compete and then then non-competes do get enforced even though the worker is not independently wealthy.

A fairly recent example [1].

[1] https://callaborlaw.com/blog/former-draftkings-employee-lose...

I lost a job because of one. In nyc. Company made some threats and the offer was pulled.

You can sue the old company for that. You had a job that they are not allowing you to do. Courts don't like it when someone isn't allowed to support themselves, and so generally place narrow limits on what a non-compete tan cover. You should sue for the sake of the rest of us who might be next when this tactic is found to work.

Lawsuits take years and are very expensive in time and money. Years of litigation cost Epic billions in legal fees and lost revenue. It's much much worse if you don't start with millions.

Lawyers will take this for a share of winnings. The goal is to make it expensive for companies to say anything like that.

Only for slam dunk cases where damages are statutory or assured.

There are several low risk angles. It would be worth the price of an initial consultation / demand letter at minimun

I don't think this is quite true. in my industry & city, noncompetes are very common and commonly enforced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com