zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. surfin+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:59:17
Nope. His non-competes are likely very restrictive.
replies(2): >>zandre+Q >>bpiche+2g
◧
2. zandre+Q[view] [source] 2024-05-15 05:11:21
>>surfin+(OP)
Non-competes were invalid in the state of California, and now are in the entirety of the U.S. [1]

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...

replies(1): >>surfin+z2
◧◩
3. surfin+z2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 05:33:12
>>zandre+Q
What about NDAs? Are those not enforceable too?
◧
4. bpiche+2g[view] [source] 2024-05-15 07:59:46
>>surfin+(OP)
I just want to point out that you have noted this falsehood like five times in this thread already. Noncompetes have been unenforceable in California since 2008, and for over a month federally.
replies(1): >>astran+3l
◧◩
5. astran+3l[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 08:44:44
>>bpiche+2g
Noncompetes have been illegal in CA for much longer than that. It is literally the reason Silicon Valley exists; Fairchild couldn't enforce theirs.
[go to top]