Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some contracts, if they prohibit you from employment in your current field of work, and within a reasonable commute of your home, are typically not enforced in NC. the tends to side with the employee. But it's not a given, so you are wise to have counsel. I agree with the poster also about negotiating. But this would only after I spoke with an attorney. Good luck!
PS - have you been on Glassdoor to see if anyone has commented about their experience with the same co and contracts - if not, see if anything is on there.
To the OP:
Rather than looking through the (Google equivalent of) Yellow Pages to find a lawyer who handles this kind of situation, call the local Bar Association. They have a referral services that will provide you with several names of people/firms that are experienced in evaluating labor contracts.
I had a different situation (real estate question), got a few names, and it turns out most would provide a phone conversation up to 30 minutes for free.
If you can explain the situation in that amount of time, and they respond with a general answer (IE: after they scan the addendum you email to them, they say "employers toss that in pretty often, more as an intimidation factor, and it's usually not enforceable").
If the situation is more detailed, then they've already started the process of helping you and are more likely to be chosen by you, so it's good marketing as well as pro-bono credit for them.
I was one of the last employees hired before they had new employees sign non-compete clauses. I was hired in November of one year and anyone hired Jan 1 and after had to sign non-compete. They did not have the current employees sign the non-compete.
Lawyers take different views on it. Our company's lawyers were conservative and I'm sure there is an issue changing the conditions of employment after the employee is hired.
I know that someone upstream said don't worry, companies won't waste resources, but I can say that our company did in fact spend resouces to enforce the non-compete.
Thanks again everyone for the responses. Very much appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
I'm just waiting to see if expending 500-1000 is worth it to him/her or not. I know several high-quality employment lawyers with non-compete experience
Yes, it is definitely worth it to me.
I got a couple recommendations via PM and I did follow up on those, but it isn't clear yet whether those will work out. Good attorneys are busy.
Another question...if you don't sign it will they fire you? Is it a take it or leave the job scenario? Because if so you may be up the creek without a paddle.
However direct competition is harder to prove in IT. You may do the same job function but the companies have no competition and you're in the clear. There is a lot of grey area too.
Another question...if you don't sign it will they fire you? Is it a take it or leave the job scenario? Because if so you may be up the creek without a paddle.
Possibly, but not necessarily. This is the exact scenario that resulted in the colleague I mentioned earlier in thread that got a massive lawsuit payout. I'm sure the lawyers got their cut too, and it was a painful lesson for the employer. That's not to say everyone should hope to get fired for not signing so they can get a big settlement. Everyone should evaluate their situation individually. But losing your job for refusal to sign is rarely the final word once an attorney gets involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabanana123
However direct competition is harder to prove in IT. You may do the same job function but the companies have no competition and you're in the clear. There is a lot of grey area too.
This is true, but I think it depends on the wording of the contract. Its hard for me to imagine most companies I've worked for spending money on legal resources to threaten former employees or whatever. I think it is mostly a psychological tactic to make the employee forget that employment is a simple bilateral agreement to trade labor for wage, and that beyond that there is not an upper hand in the relationship. They prefer to be perceived as the abusive parent that will lash out with a beating if the child misbehaves, they consider it "adjusting the attitude of the employee".
Reminds me of companies who have a strict "no references" policy. And yes some do including two I worked for but of course everyone does it on the side anyways.
You should be compensated for signing away your options to provide a livelyhood for your family. Is it saying you can't code any software for a year or you can't code a specific type of software aimed at one industry?
Just an opportunity sounds like maybe they lost an employee to a competitor and are trying to shore up their legal standing to prevent it from happening again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
