Slashdot Mirror
California Lawsuit Wants To Weaken Noncompetes (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: California already prohibits companies from enforcing noncompetes within the state, but a Bay Area life sciences company is asking a state court to go even further. Veeva Systems is suing three of its East Coast-based competitors and asking a California Superior Court judge to declare that it has the right to hire employees who have signed such agreements. Veeva also wants a court to limit the use of non-disparagement and confidentiality agreements. "Non-compete agreements are bad," the company said in its suit. "These agreements limit employment opportunities. They suppress wages. They keep employees trapped in jobs they do not want, and they keep employees from fairly competing with their former employers. These agreements restrict fair and robust competition for employees."
make the company that makes you sign a non compete pay you full salary for the duration of the non compete, whether you are actually working or not.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Why does CA think it can unilateral terminate a voluntary contract between an employee and employer?
the contract becomes null and void upon termination of employment, there is no compensation to the employee, the employer has no right to enforce any contract where there is no business being conducted.
And when the six other people behind you get jobs and you don't, why, you can always eat your principles!
Sometimes egregious behavior needs to be squashed by the courts or legislatures, and not just simply left up to the free market Invisible Hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Voluntary". Let's not bullshit, in almost every job offer situation the employer making the offer has significantly more leverage than the person accepting the job and will press for concessions like a non-compete. A lot of people sign on to the non-compete because they need the job today, and can't worry about the nebulous effects of the non-compete as it may apply in the abstract future. Employers know this and take full advantage of it because once the employee is in the door, that's one more thing keeping them there even if the work environment starts to suck.
Those reasons alone are why it's not a bad idea for CA to void these "agreements".
Oh god, libertarians.
What would you do without the state civil court system?
Duals? Warfare?
Whether or not a contract is voluntary is irrelevant. What is relevant is the authority that can enforce the contract. In this case, that is the State of California and they can modify how contracts are enforced in their civil court system at will.
A voluntary agreement is not sufficient to form a contract. Contracts must also have consideration - something you receive in exchange for something else. Often it's money, but it can also be products or services. For a contract to be valid, there must be consideration given by both sides. e.g. A contract saying all you transfer all your assets to me and that you willingly become my slave until the day you die is invalid, even if you willingly want the contract. I'm getting everything of yours, but you're not getting anything from me. So you are not receiving any consideration, and thus the contract is invalid.
A non-compete requires the employee to give up something (their ability to work in their chosen field for a number of years) in exchange for nothing. If the company continued to pay you for the duration of the non-compete, then it could be valid. But because they company's lawyers are trying to get something for nothing, they refuse to give you any consideration in exchange for your non-compete, thus invalidating the non-compete as a legal contract.