Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is nothing in this ruling that is new as it relates to non-competes or non-solicitation. Overly broad non-compete’s and non-solicitation clauses have always been unenforceable.

They must be specific and unambiguous.



I had an employer only offer severance if I signed a new non compete for FIVE years and to get around the overly broad language they inserted clauses on every single thing that stated that there was no way around the non compete even though the state would find it illegal. My state has precedent that if the non compete doesn't allow a person to earn a living, they throw it out and if one clause does that, the whole thing is in valid. So the employer wrote their new non compete to completely try to circumvent it. They also paid shit, so severance wasn't worth it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: