• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Confidentiality Agreements

We have a contract. Its a done deal as of Sep. 1. Again, just don't want to lose the income of the current until that starts. So I guess she can just refuse and see what they do. She is already planning to tell them that she wants an attorney to look at it. They wanted all the employees to have it turned in today and they just received it yesterday.
 
wfudkn said:
Is she at-will or under contract? If she does have an employment agreement, I'd check to see what it says about termination. Unless it is extremely general in nature, I have a hard time believing that refusal to sign a non-compete could be grounds for termination.

Regardless, she should talk to an employment lawyer before she signs anything. It really shouldn't cost much.
Click to expand...

At will. No employment agreement. Company just now decided it needed to become more "corporate" and brought in two consultants to write up an employee handbook and have everyone sign a confidentiality agreement. It's funny, the handbook says that employees are REQUIRED to give a minimum two week notice and mangers a four week notice to end employment and they have to sign a paper saying they have read and understood the employee handbook.
 
rjequalsmj said:
I have no real knowledge or expertise other than my dad is a lawyer and he typically says things like this rarely hold up in court and are mostly meant to scare people. I have no idea if this is actually true.
Click to expand...

Non-competes hold up all the time (except in California). As stated above they typically cannot be unreasonable, but I've drafted 10 year non-competes that are relatively broad and they've been enforceable. While there are differences between jurisdictions, they are really judged on a case-by-case basis. This after the fact kind of thing is unusual, but doesn't mean it won't hold up.

And as to the scaring part, you never can tell. I've seen people breach a non-compete and all it does in the end is burn some bridges, but I've also seen companies release the hounds and really make someone's life difficult over a breach. Litigation is a lot more of a burden on an individual than on a company.
 
deacfan78 said:
At will. No employment agreement. Company just now decided it needed to become more "corporate" and brought in two consultants to write up an employee handbook and have everyone sign a confidentiality agreement. It's funny, the handbook says that employees are REQUIRED to give a minimum two week notice and mangers a four week notice to end employment and they have to sign a paper saying they have read and understood the employee handbook.
Click to expand...

is this unusual? we're required to give 2 weeks (although ours doesn't differentiate between employees and managers), and we have to sign a paper every year saying we've got the updated handbook.
 
deacfan78 said:
At will. No employment agreement. Company just now decided it needed to become more "corporate" and brought in two consultants to write up an employee handbook and have everyone sign a confidentiality agreement. It's funny, the handbook says that employees are REQUIRED to give a minimum two week notice and mangers a four week notice to end employment and they have to sign a paper saying they have read and understood the employee handbook.
Click to expand...

Well, in that context it's not completely unreasonable. I've set up similar plans with clients, but I don't think it was a hardship for any of the employees involved since they were all relatively small companies. But if she has already signed a contract with a new job, then she really shouldn't sign this since it could potentially prevent her from taking the new job. She should definitely speak with someone. While the lack of income for that 45 days would suck, it's probably better than if they try to prevent her from taking the job at the end of the day.
 
DeacHoops said:
is this unusual? we're required to give 2 weeks (although ours doesn't differentiate between employees and managers), and we have to sign a paper every year saying we've got the updated handbook.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that a 2 week notice is required. Notices in general are nice, but to say that one is required is just funny to me. What can they do if an employee just quits? Nothing.
 
Seriously. Just set an appt with a lawyer for next week, drag your feet, decline to sign such an onerous document without guaranteed upfront compensation, and if the current company gets pissy, get fired and collect unemployment for a month.
 
DeacHoops said:
is this unusual? we're required to give 2 weeks (although ours doesn't differentiate between employees and managers), and we have to sign a paper every year saying we've got the updated handbook.
Click to expand...

I believe it's the fact that they're REQUIRE to give 2 weeks notice. If you're in an "at-will" employment state you can leave at any time.
 
Yeah, they can fire you and not give you two weeks additional pay and walk you out the door the next minute. Yet, they REQUIRE you to give them two weeks notice. Yeah, that's fair.
 
At will, usually means no notice required for either party.. But notice is nice. Can't see how you can have at will and require notice.. What will they do, hold the check? Not on a lagging payroll..
 
wfudkn said:
Non-competes hold up all the time (except in California). As stated above they typically cannot be unreasonable, but I've drafted 10 year non-competes that are relatively broad and they've been enforceable. While there are differences between jurisdictions, they are really judged on a case-by-case basis. This after the fact kind of thing is unusual, but doesn't mean it won't hold up.

And as to the scaring part, you never can tell. I've seen people breach a non-compete and all it does in the end is burn some bridges, but I've also seen companies release the hounds and really make someone's life difficult over a breach. Litigation is a lot more of a burden on an individual than on a company.
Click to expand...

I will have to read it tonight. I briefly looked through it this morning. At glancing at it, I didn't see anything in it that specified terms of non-compete as far as saying she couldn't go work for ABC Catering for 10 years. And again, I don't think it will matter because she won't be selling catering anymore.

This is a small restaurant and they are struggling now anyway, hence one of the owners bringing in consultants. He is a "sky is falling" type of guy. I don't think he would want to go to court even if he had a case because of the costs involved, but I could be wrong, you never know.
 
Deacon92 said:
At will, usually means no notice required for either party.. But notice is nice. Can't see how you can have at will and require notice.. What will they do, hold the check? Not on a lagging payroll..
Click to expand...

I don't think they can hold a check. I know in NC you can pay an employee at minimum wage rate if they leave without a notice.
 
HeavyPetter said:
Seriously. Just set an appt with a lawyer for next week, drag your feet, decline to sign such an onerous document without guaranteed upfront compensation, and if the current company gets pissy, get fired and collect unemployment for a month.
Click to expand...

I think that is the plan for now.
 
deacfan78 said:
I will have to read it tonight. I briefly looked through it this morning. At glancing at it, I didn't see anything in it that specified terms of non-compete as far as saying she couldn't go work for ABC Catering for 10 years. And again, I don't think it will matter because she won't be selling catering anymore.

This is a small restaurant and they are struggling now anyway, hence one of the owners bringing in consultants. He is a "sky is falling" type of guy. I don't think he would want to go to court even if he had a case because of the costs involved, but I could be wrong, you never know.
Click to expand...

Restaurant Impossible with Chef Robert Irvine?
 
No. I will disclose once all this is over because fuck that place! Until then, I don't want to jeapordize anything.
 
deacfan78 said:
I will have to read it tonight. I briefly looked through it this morning. At glancing at it, I didn't see anything in it that specified terms of non-compete as far as saying she couldn't go work for ABC Catering for 10 years. And again, I don't think it will matter because she won't be selling catering anymore.

This is a small restaurant and they are struggling now anyway, hence one of the owners bringing in consultants. He is a "sky is falling" type of guy. I don't think he would want to go to court even if he had a case because of the costs involved, but I could be wrong, you never know.
Click to expand...

Small restaurants that are struggling wouldn't have the capacity to pay for a non-comp prosecution anyway. Drag feet, stall, don't sign anything. Tell them her lawyer wants the employer's lawyer present as a witness. Costing them a couple hundred bucks on a whim might be a deterrent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top