What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Non Compete Clauses - What Do You Think? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Any of you Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

Any of you non Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

I've never used one as an employer. My thought was always if a person thinks they can do better than what I'm offering them at FBG or Bryant Boats, it's either on me to make the job more attractive or I wish them well if I'm unwilling to pay what someone else will. 

The non compete part always seemed lame to me.

But recently, I've had two different people I know have this come up. One was for a job as a barista in a coffee shot. The other was for a nurse. In both cases, the employee is being asked to sign an agreement that if they leave under their own accord, they are unable to work for a competitor in a 10 mile radius for 1 year.

Can you elaborate on what you think on that?

 
Both of those examples would be nearly impossible to enforce if challenged in court.

Knowledge of proprietary company information, ability to steal clients and bring with you...valid reasons for non-competes.

A barista? Give me a ####### break.  

 
I don't have an issue with having a non compete clause.  I think it all depends on the business and the relationship with the employer and employee.

 
RUSF18 said:
Both of those examples would be nearly impossible to enforce if challenged in court.

Knowledge of proprietary company information, ability to steal clients and bring with you...valid reasons for non-competes.

A barista? Give me a ####### break.  
Click to expand...
Jimmy Johns requires them from their sandwich monkeys.  One reason why I think Jimmy Johns is evil.  I guess I understand that baristas actually do have to be trained.  I can't make a heart with steamed milk.  So you might legitimately be worried about investing in training a barista and then having a free riding coffee shop just poach trained baristas with slightly better wages or hours.  I guess I'd need to know how big an investment that is.  

I rarely see a non-compete that I feel is narrowly tailored enough.  If you're worried about proprietary information, you can protect that without a non-compete. 

 
not a lawyer. 
they have their time and place. 
they are abused and used outside that time and place often. 
the people who abuse them like that are evil ####holes who deserve to lose all their employees. 

 
A non-compete clause is more enforceable if given a reasonable deadline and regional restrictions, which this one seems to do.  Seems fairly reasonable to me, besides the fact that one of them is for a barista. 

Big difference between training someone and having them leave shortly thereafter, compared with someone getting to know your clients and taking your clients when they leave.  Which from the company's standpoint is the main reason behind the NCC. 

 
This smells familiar... I think there was a decent thread on it last year?  Maybe 2 years ago?

 
I'll second what most folks here say.  I'd be interested in whether @bigbottom has any thought on the matter, as I'm pretty sure he's an employment lawyer.

In general, noncompete clauses should be in existence to protect the employer in some way.  I wonder if they end up being used more as a sword rather than a shield (the examples I remember reading about in law school all seemed to revolve around employers acting like jerks).  But they exist for a reason, and I always assumed "sales" was one of the more common industries where they occurred.  You don't want to spend valuable resources paying your salesmen to refine their craft (even loosing money in the process if you pay them even when they aren't selling), and then they leave to go to a competitor, and take valuable knowledge, skill, training, (client lists?), etc.

 
For a job that pays less than $300K a year it makes little sense.  If someone wants to continue to pay me not to compete I'd be cool with it.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Any of you Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

Any of you non Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

I've never used one as an employer. My thought was always if a person thinks they can do better than what I'm offering them at FBG or Bryant Boats, it's either on me to make the job more attractive or I wish them well if I'm unwilling to pay what someone else will. 

The non compete part always seemed lame to me.

But recently, I've had two different people I know have this come up. One was for a job as a barista in a coffee shot. The other was for a nurse. In both cases, the employee is being asked to sign an agreement that if they leave under their own accord, they are unable to work for a competitor in a 10 mile radius for 1 year.

Can you elaborate on what you think on that?
Click to expand...
They are generally frowned upon by the eyes of the law. Judges do not like to take away a person's ability to make a living.

 
Albert Haynesworth had a non-compete claus before he signed with Washington.  Seemed to work.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes sense if you want to protect the recipe for secret sauce at All American Burger. 

 
Good luck trying to enforce them here in CA. I would want an employee to abide by the employment agreement. Don’t share proprietary info, etc. Our HR uses it in negotiating severance packages. In general I’m against them. 

 
I've signed and broken multiple non-compete clauses over the years and have been hassled about it a few times including not getting paid commissions by a firm that accused me of breaking their non-compete. I sell professional services and ultimately think they are crap but I'm also technically part of upper management now so I've been in a position to look to enforce them when we have lost sales people that are blatantly selling into companies that they shouldn't. Typically I only care if they are bad mouthing my firm while doing so. 

My personal advice to anyone that is asked to sign one is to see if they will let you sign it without witnesses. Take it home, break out your cell phone and record your wife, girlfriend or buddy signing your name to the non-compete. Hand it in and if ever faced with the employer you left trying to enforce it send them a copy of the video so that they know you never signed it.

 
Snickers said:
I've signed and broken multiple non-compete clauses over the years and have been hassled about it a few times including not getting paid commissions by a firm that accused me of breaking their non-compete. I sell professional services and ultimately think they are crap but I'm also technically part of upper management now so I've been in a position to look to enforce them when we have lost sales people that are blatantly selling into companies that they shouldn't. Typically I only care if they are bad mouthing my firm while doing so. 

My personal advice to anyone that is asked to sign one is to see if they will let you sign it without witnesses. Take it home, break out your cell phone and record your wife, girlfriend or buddy signing your name to the non-compete. Hand it in and if ever faced with the employer you left trying to enforce it send them a copy of the video so that they know you never signed it.
Click to expand...
This seems like horrible advice.

 
Judge Smails said:
Good luck trying to enforce them here in CA. I would want an employee to abide by the employment agreement. Don’t share proprietary info, etc. Our HR uses it in negotiating severance packages. In general I’m against them. 
Click to expand...
California is pretty unique in that non-competes are generally unenforceable there except in extremely limited circumstances.   Most other states will enforce at least "reasonable" agreements that are not against the public interest.  In some states, like Florida, overly broad agreements will be "blue-pencilled" by the court.  In other states, like Virginia, modification is not allowed (and in Virginia, anyone seeking to enforce a non-compete needs to prove its reasonableness by clear and convincing evidence).  

 
Judge Smails said:
Good luck trying to enforce them here in CA. I would want an employee to abide by the employment agreement. Don’t share proprietary info, etc. Our HR uses it in negotiating severance packages. In general I’m against them. 
Click to expand...
My wife had an old employer who asked her to sign a non compete.  My wife was worried about it until I told her it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.  I told her to just sign it and then forget about it.  

This was at a catering company :lmao:  

 
Buttonhook said:
A non-compete clause is more enforceable if given a reasonable deadline and regional restrictions, which this one seems to do.  Seems fairly reasonable to me, besides the fact that one of them is for a barista. 

Big difference between training someone and having them leave shortly thereafter, compared with someone getting to know your clients and taking your clients when they leave.  Which from the company's standpoint is the main reason behind the NCC. 
Click to expand...
I once had to sign a ridiculous non-compete that was so overarching it defined the non-compete to cover anything basically that may be remotely competitive to their business. Mind you, this was mixed-use real estate which encompasses everything from land use and urban planning to real estate finance to public outreach and engagement.

The reason I signed without too much concern is I knew that by being so ridiculously overreaching (as Narcissist boss #######s tend to be), it would have no chance to stand up in court. Like, none. 

No geographic limitations, no industry limitations (in his mind if I went to start a communications firm that had real estate clients no go. Same if I'd have wanted to go into construction, or advisory services for urban planning related work) - but it did at least have "only" a two year tail. Basically wanted to keep us completely off the market unless he was ok with where we would go, with no compensation to match.

Also one of the reasons I left the firm. Oh, and also the fact that he wanted even MORE restrictive language with the ability to pull back my small equity stake so he was going to make us sign an even worse agreement. Problem? In the new NDA they purposefully left out a non-compete while adding language into our shareholder agreement that all signees COULD do anything including business that was directly competitive EXCEPT that which would be outlined in my employment agreement (the idea was narciboss wanted that freedom and we all had to sign the same language just different shares). As I got sick and they screwed me over, I never signed the employment agreeement and therefore have conflicting language whereby the more recent doc likely not only takes precedence, but actually makes some legal sense as opposed to the overarching nature of the earlier more traditional NDA/non compete. 

 
McJose said:
My wife had an old employer who asked her to sign a non compete.  My wife was worried about it until I told her it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.  I told her to just sign it and then forget about it.  

This was at a catering company :lmao:  
Click to expand...
It makes sense that a catering company may want one signed.  What if she decided to start her own catering business and try to steal their customer base?  It can be hard to prove but I get why a company does it.

 
Whether and to what extent they are enforceable depends entirely on what state you are in (or which state’s law ultimately applies to the dispute).  For those saying they are unenforceable or rarely enforceable, such broad statements can only be limited to a particular jurisdiction. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McJose said:
My wife had an old employer who asked her to sign a non compete.  My wife was worried about it until I told her it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.  I told her to just sign it and then forget about it.  

This was at a catering company :lmao:  
Click to expand...
What was your wife’s role with the catering company?  What state are you in?

 
Judge Smails said:
Good luck trying to enforce them here in CA. I would want an employee to abide by the employment agreement. Don’t share proprietary info, etc. Our HR uses it in negotiating severance packages. In general I’m against them. 
Click to expand...
In California, not only are they unenforceable, companies can be punished (as can their lawyers) for implementing them. 

 
Koya said:
I once had to sign a ridiculous non-compete that was so overarching it defined the non-compete to cover anything basically that may be remotely competitive to their business. Mind you, this was mixed-use real estate which encompasses everything from land use and urban planning to real estate finance to public outreach and engagement.

The reason I signed without too much concern is I knew that by being so ridiculously overreaching (as Narcissist boss #######s tend to be), it would have no chance to stand up in court. Like, none. 

No geographic limitations, no industry limitations (in his mind if I went to start a communications firm that had real estate clients no go. Same if I'd have wanted to go into construction, or advisory services for urban planning related work) - but it did at least have "only" a two year tail. Basically wanted to keep us completely off the market unless he was ok with where we would go, with no compensation to match.

Also one of the reasons I left the firm. Oh, and also the fact that he wanted even MORE restrictive language with the ability to pull back my small equity stake so he was going to make us sign an even worse agreement. Problem? In the new NDA they purposefully left out a non-compete while adding language into our shareholder agreement that all signees COULD do anything including business that was directly competitive EXCEPT that which would be outlined in my employment agreement (the idea was narciboss wanted that freedom and we all had to sign the same language just different shares). As I got sick and they screwed me over, I never signed the employment agreeement and therefore have conflicting language whereby the more recent doc likely not only takes precedence, but actually makes some legal sense as opposed to the overarching nature of the earlier more traditional NDA/non compete. 
Click to expand...
It’s important to know whether the state you are in allows overly broad restrictive covenants to be “blue penciled,” meaning that it could still be enforced, just on a more limited basis (shorter duration, smaller geographic scope, more limited scope of activity).  Some states allow blue penciling and some do not. Some of the states that do provide more limited remedies if an overly broad restriction has to be blue penciled. 

 
bigbottom said:
It’s important to know whether the state you are in allows overly broad restrictive covenants to be “blue penciled,” meaning that it could still be enforced, just on a more limited basis (shorter duration, smaller geographic scope, more limited scope of activity).  Some states allow blue penciling and some do not. Some of the states that do provide more limited remedies if an overly broad restriction has to be blue penciled. 
Click to expand...
Thanks BB. Both of these instances are in TN. Do you happen to know if "blue penciling" affects them? Not a big deal as I think both are ok with signing and moving on. Just seemed odd to me. 

 
I left Goldman Sachs  because they were asking me to sign a  NC.  They weren't letting me do my job without it and I chose to leave.  I spent a fair amount on legal bills trying to understand whether they were enforceable or not. As I recall, enforceability is completely determined by state.  They are almost not worth the paper they're written on in CA but in IL they might be.  Basically, the employer would have to file an injunction and get in front of a judge which means it's a crapshoot.  Usually, a judge won't deny someone the ability to make a living.

 
My wife is a vet and has one.  Basically to prevent a Dr from quitting, opening a clinic close by, and taking clients with her.  I get the idea, but not really enforceable - for example she can't contact old clients for X amount of time but they could seek her out on their own, and wtf could you prove which happened. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks BB. Both of these instances are in TN. Do you happen to know if "blue penciling" affects them? Not a big deal as I think both are ok with signing and moving on. Just seemed odd to me. 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I haven’t litigated under TN law. If I get a free moment at some point I can do a bit of research. 

 
Dr. Octopus said:
They are generally frowned upon by the eyes of the law. Judges do not like to take away a person's ability to make a living.
Click to expand...
If a non-compete is narrowly-tailored, enforcing it shouldn’t take away a person’s ability to make a living in most situations. 

The PSA I’ve tried to accomplish here every time this topic comes up is that in many jurisdictions these can be enforced, and people shouldn’t assume they’re unenforceable or not worth the paper they’re written on. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
It’s important to know whether the state you are in allows overly broad restrictive covenants to be “blue penciled,” meaning that it could still be enforced, just on a more limited basis (shorter duration, smaller geographic scope, more limited scope of activity).  Some states allow blue penciling and some do not. Some of the states that do provide more limited remedies if an overly broad restriction has to be blue penciled. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had my atty look at it in NY.  He gave the usual disclaimer of if you go to court you never know what may happen in a courtroom, but this is pretty ridiculously overreaching language and poorly written at that (on purpose - being as unsimple as possible was my bosses secret weapon to confuse the enemy, and at some levels worked, but with sophisticated players? Just frustrated them and turned them off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 2003 I was sued by a former employer for violating my non-compete and for disclosure of trade secrets. I'm an engineer and had left my former company to work at another company within the industry. Shortly before I left, my next-level supervisor had also gone to the same company - I had no idea he was also leaving. He resigned the day I got my offer letter and he was also included in the lawsuit. I suspect the lawsuit had little to do with our non-compete; rather, it was more likely that the CEO of our former company was a vindictive jerk. 

In the end, the former company eventually dropped the suit after jerk CEO left. It was headed down the path of us winning since Texas law requires a non-compete to define a boundary and length of time. Ours had neither and was likely to be ruled unenforceable based on the way the judge's comments had indicated throughout our time in court. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Any of you Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

Any of you non Lawyerguys have thoughts on non compete clauses?

I've never used one as an employer. My thought was always if a person thinks they can do better than what I'm offering them at FBG or Bryant Boats, it's either on me to make the job more attractive or I wish them well if I'm unwilling to pay what someone else will. 

The non compete part always seemed lame to me.

But recently, I've had two different people I know have this come up. One was for a job as a barista in a coffee shot. The other was for a nurse. In both cases, the employee is being asked to sign an agreement that if they leave under their own accord, they are unable to work for a competitor in a 10 mile radius for 1 year.

Can you elaborate on what you think on that?
Click to expand...
so dumb.

if you have a business that is using a proprietary system that is unique in a field, or creating its own market then yes I can see requiring people sign a non-compete since its not like anyone else knows, or is doing it.     I mean if you hired someone long ago and they stole all your drafting data/systems and then started their own FBG's maybe you'd have wished they signed a non-compete, because you and some other people created it and marketed it and turned it into a successful business.   That's a situation i can totally understand non-competes.

a barista?    Like bieng an order taker at McDonalds.

 
I was once asked to sign a noncompete. At the time I was fully invested in what I considered to be my second major career, and about half of it was working for businesses ("end users") in major office design, construction, and upfits. (I also did a lot of residential work both for myself and with Sears). My wife was involved with the design of many/most of my commercial contracts. Some of these companies were moving into facilities which were handled by a property management company which began soliciting me to work for them--and after about 5 years or so we negotiated.

Given that  I had prior relationships with most of their clients when they asked me to sign a non compete I declined. I did end up working for them for maybe 15 years--but it was with the understanding that I would not give up the option of contracting independently with those clients with whom I was already involved. Though there was some crossover we really didn't have much issue with it--and as I was handling more of the overall contracts I frequently found myself subbing out much of the actual construction in any case. 

 
I thought this said non-compLete clause, and it got me to thinking about the dark times in my single days.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

snellman
Collectively, A thread to celebrate our kids Non-Athletic accomplishments.
2
Replies
62
Views
1K
Rustoleum
Rustoleum
Snotbubbles
Thinking About Moving To Florida. Help please.
2 3
Replies
139
Views
4K
CGRdrJoe
CGRdrJoe
Bossman
Entered my first official Cornhole event...
Replies
20
Views
673
Bossman
Bossman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top