legal question

phonkenstein

I work as a "staples easy tech" and recently they asked me to sign a paper saying that I wouldn't work for a competitor, own a share in a competitor, or operate my own business that competes with Staples. Is that legal?

Thanatos

phonkenstein wrote: »

I work as a "staples easy tech" and recently they asked me to sign a paper saying that I wouldn't work for a competitor, own a share in a competitor, or operate my own business that competes with Staples. Is that legal?

While you're working there? I don't know about the "share-owning" part, but the rest is, yeah. Are they extending the no-compete clause after you stop working there?

Vrtra Theory

IANAL. In general, the answer is that it is legal and somewhat enforceable. Here's Justia's synopsis:

Where it is included, a noncompete clause bars the employee from working for the employer's competitors or starting a company that will compete with the employer for a set period of time after leaving the company and within a specific geographic area.

Sometimes, a noncompete or exclusivity clause requires an employee to agree not to do any work for a competitor while on the company's payroll, which may even include serving on the board of directors of another company or owning stock in a competitor. A separate noncompete agreement may also be used for this purpose.

State laws govern noncompete agreements, so enforceability varies from state to state; some states will not enforce them at all because of public policy reasons. A court may balance the employer's interest in restricting competition, the state's interest in free labor markets, the employee's right to work in his or her field, and any unethical behavior by the employee, such as taking customer lists to start a competing business.

RonnieDobbs

It's more than likely legal. If the clause extends to after you've stopped working there, non-compete clauses need to be related to the business that they protect and "reasonably limited in time and scope," that is, it needs to be confined to areas where your competition could hurt Staples (lots of places) and confined to a reasonable time period (varies greatly by state).

Regarding owning shares in a competitor, most states have an exception for publicly-held companies. That means it'd be ok for you to own stock in Office Depot but it wouldn't be ok for you to own a stake in ABC office supplies- the mom and pop from down the street.

YMMV, however, and the forgoing is opinion only and should not be considered legal advice.

Edit: Beat'd

Belketre

I'd be finding out if they can get you to sign this after you have already started working for them. If this was something that you had to sign when accepting their job offer, I'm pretty sure it would be legal. Not so sure about it after you had started though.

Thanatos

Belketre wrote: »

I'd be finding out if they can get you to sign this after you have already started working for them. If this was something that you had to sign when accepting their job offer, I'm pretty sure it would be legal. Not so sure about it after you had started though.

It would, in fact, be legal regardless.

Omnimon

Non-compete clauses are common across the board for large companies, but they're rarely enforced. It's more about people with trade secrets or high-level confidential information than the 'little guy' moving on.

Most often if you approach the HR department of company A while working for them and you want to move to company B, noting the non-compete clause, they will waive it. Even at the executive level.

Belketre

Thanatos wrote: »

Belketre wrote: »

I'd be finding out if they can get you to sign this after you have already started working for them. If this was something that you had to sign when accepting their job offer, I'm pretty sure it would be legal. Not so sure about it after you had started though.

It would, in fact, be legal regardless.

If he signed it, yes.
I was wondering more if they could make him sign it, because here you sure as hell cant change the conditions of somebodys employment like that.

Thanatos

Belketre wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Belketre wrote: »

I'd be finding out if they can get you to sign this after you have already started working for them. If this was something that you had to sign when accepting their job offer, I'm pretty sure it would be legal. Not so sure about it after you had started though.

It would, in fact, be legal regardless.

If he signed it, yes.
I was wondering more if they could make him sign it, because here you sure as hell cant change the conditions of somebodys employment like that.

If he's a contract employee, which he probably isn't, then no, they couldn't.

If he's just a regular employee, which he probably is, then he's "at-will," and aside from a very few exceptions, they can fire him for just about anything.

phonkenstein

Understood. Thanks. I still think its kind of ridiculous since I'm the only one who has to sign something like that. They don't tell anybody else where they can or can't work when they're not at Staples. Its something of a problem for me because I have been doing work on the side for other people. I wasn't getting that business through Staples though, so I didn't feel like I was taking their business or anything. I'll probably just end up looking for a different job anyway. The whole Easy Tech thing pays way less than the Geek Squad and its really not worth the hassle for 9 bucks an hour.

Thanatos

phonkenstein wrote: »

Understood. Thanks. I still think its kind of ridiculous since I'm the only one who has to sign something like that. They don't tell anybody else where they can or can't work when they're not at Staples. Its something of a problem for me because I have been doing work on the side for other people. I wasn't getting that business through Staples though, so I didn't feel like I was taking their business or anything. I'll probably just end up looking for a different job anyway. The whole Easy Tech thing pays way less than the Geek Squad and its really not worth the hassle for 9 bucks an hour.

Well (and before anyone pipes up, this is not illegal), what they don't know won't hurt them. Are they only asking you to do it because they know you do work on the side? Technically, if they found out you were doing work on the side after signing the contract, the absolute worst they could do is fire you and sue you, and I really, really doubt they'd sue you.

But yeah, if you can make more money doing the same work elsewhere, do it.

ManicDamnitMan

I work for a national security alarm company, where I am on a non-compete agreement. It is very serious and our company has been known to sue the ex-employees new employer for up to $250,000. It realy sucks that I can't go to work in the alarm buisness for another 3 years if I leave this job.

Thanatos

It's also worth mentioning that for a $9 an hour job, I don't think I'd sign a no-compete that wasn't just "I agree not to steal your customers."

deadonthestreet

ManicDamnitMan wrote: »

I work for a national security alarm company, where I am on a non-compete agreement. It is very serious and our company has been known to sue the ex-employees new employer for up to $250,000. It realy sucks that I can't go to work in the alarm buisness for another 3 years if I leave this job.

3 years is probably excessive, and won't e enforced. Lots of courts cap it at one year. Also there is commonly a geographical limit. Like, they can't prevent you from working three states over, in some cases.

Some states, like California, do not enforce non-compete agreements.

ManicDamnitMan

The thing about this is that I make good money and I am intrusted to alot of sensitive information to the buisness. Three years are nothing to the alarm buisness in general. Non-compete agreements terms and conditions vary on what kind of job you are doing and your position in the company you happen to work in. They are as legal as the lawyer who wrote the paper that you signed, dated, and in my case had notorized.

phonkenstein

Apparently they're asking (making) all the Easy Techs sign them. I just happen to be the only one at my store.

Thanatos

ManicDamnitMan wrote: »

The thing about this is that I make good money and I am intrusted to alot of sensitive information to the buisness. Three years are nothing to the alarm buisness in general. Non-compete agreements terms and conditions vary on what kind of job you are doing and your position in the company you happen to work in. They are as legal as the lawyer who wrote the paper that you signed, dated, and in my case had notorized.

Okay, they're legal, but not necessarily enforceable. If you do a Google search, you'll find all kinds of sites telling you this. They have to have reasonable limits on geographic range and time periods.

It's like those waivers you have to sign at a lot of places, saying "no matter what we do, you agree not to sue us." They're drafted by lawyers, too, and totally unenforceable if you can prove negligence.

RoundBoy

If your job is a trained alarm installer... its pretty hard to have a legal document enforced on you claiming that you are not allowed to *work* for 3 years.

here are a few points:

1) They must know you are 'breaking' the terms of the document. They can't sue you for working at a new place if they don't know you are working for the new place. There is no obligation to tell them.

2) While these documents are valid.. there is a very, VERY narrow range they will be enforced in. I am 99% certian that it does not apply in your case.. You are a support tech right? Are the courts really enforcing the BIG COMPANY's right not to allow an hourly tech not to work?

if you were specifically going to office max, because you specifically had information about staples to use against them... then they can hold you.. otherwise its open. also... if you change titles its pretty much a new position... ie tech support to production specialist. Different job.. no violating clause.

I have been in and seen a few cases for these clauses ... I have sucessfully beaten them.. and i know of one person who was sued under this... not sure of the outcome though... but its pretty likely they were burned because they made it VERY obvious.