CA Court Favors Employees in Trade Secret Decision
Posted by
michael
on from the sanity-prevails dept.
legal_tinker writes "At grep.law, Tait Graves writes: 'In a majority of states, you can be enjoined from starting a new job because of what you know, even if you have done nothing wrong.' A California court just rejected that idea in California."
Re:People Laid off from my company
by
rodgerd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I can work for whoever the hell I want to work for.
This is true in New Zealand to a large extent. The courts have consistently ruled that restraints of trade in employee contracts (a) cannot stop someone earning a living in their chosen field and (b) must be specifically compensated (that is, if you want me to sit on my hands for six months, you have to pay me something for that six months, not just claim my regular salary covers it).
The only provisions which have been consistently upheld here are the ones relating to forbidding employees from soliciting clients or co-workers from their now ex-employer. Also, all bets are off in the case of redundancy (you can't sack someone and then prevent them from earning a living).
Unfortunately, the popularity of the absurdly facistic contracts becoming standard in the US ("We own everything you've ever thought of now aand for ever and you can never work for anyone doing anything more meaningful than burger-flipping again") has influenced many New Zealand companies in the direction of putting illegal provisions in their emploment contracts - either because they're too stupid to consult a competant employment lawyer, or because they're cynically hoping the threat of legal action will allow them to beat employees into line.
If companies put a fraction of the effort they put into trying to terrorise employees into making them happy while they're still at the company they'd probably get better retention of key personel.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true in New Zealand to a large extent. The courts have consistently ruled that restraints of trade in employee contracts (a) cannot stop someone earning a living in their chosen field and (b) must be specifically compensated (that is, if you want me to sit on my hands for six months, you have to pay me something for that six months, not just claim my regular salary covers it).
The only provisions which have been consistently upheld here are the ones relating to forbidding employees from soliciting clients or co-workers from their now ex-employer. Also, all bets are off in the case of redundancy (you can't sack someone and then prevent them from earning a living).
Unfortunately, the popularity of the absurdly facistic contracts becoming standard in the US ("We own everything you've ever thought of now aand for ever and you can never work for anyone doing anything more meaningful than burger-flipping again") has influenced many New Zealand companies in the direction of putting illegal provisions in their emploment contracts - either because they're too stupid to consult a competant employment lawyer, or because they're cynically hoping the threat of legal action will allow them to beat employees into line.
If companies put a fraction of the effort they put into trying to terrorise employees into making them happy while they're still at the company they'd probably get better retention of key personel.