Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Consideration

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by Johnny555 on Monday August 17, 2015 @01:54PM (#10074836)

Can't employers impose pretty much any (legal) new requirements for at-will employees?

At-will means that your employer can terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause (and you can leave your employment at any time). So if you don't like a change in your employment terms, you are free to go, or your employer is free to fire you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by rhino369 on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:39PM (#10075161)

The question comes up because in order for a contract (the non-compete) to be legally valid, both sides have to give "consideration." Consideration is a legal term of art that means each sides has to promise something of value. If I sign a paper that says, "I'll give Johny555 50 bucks in exchange for nothing," it's not a real contract.

There is a doctrine called the preexisting duty rule that says that something already owed doesn't count as consideration. If you owe me 50 bucks, and you make me sign a paper that says if you pay me back the 50 bucks I'll paint your chicken coup, that isn't a contract. You already owe me the 50 bucks. It's a way to stop people from changing a deal halfway through. <insert VaderAtCloudCity.JPEG>

The issue here isn't whether the company can terminate you for refusing to sign. They can. But if you sign it, does it become a legal contract?

One side argues no, because your consideration is keeping the same job you already had. The other side says at will employment can be terminated at any time and keeping your job isn't a duty the employer already had. This court went with the later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by Lawtonfogle on Monday August 17, 2015 @03:38PM (#10075543)

At will means you aren't owed the job you currently have. You are owed pay for all work currently done, but you aren't owed being employed tomorrow.

Say I have a contract with you so that every week I give you 50 and you paint my chicken coup (I want it to be a different color every week to confuse the chickens). Now one day, you say you will terminate my contract unless I pay 55 instead.

Is this you getting 5 for nothing (this is the delta between the old contract and the purposed one) or is it you getting 55 and I getting a painted coup? Well, as long as the contract allowed you or I to end the arrangement at any time, I'd say it was the latter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by rhino369 on Monday August 17, 2015 @04:30PM (#10075895)

If at will employment doesn't carry any promise or value[1], why should it be allowed as consideration in the first place. It's an empty promise.

[1]-and I agree it doesn't

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by dtparr on Monday August 17, 2015 @01:58PM (#10074868)

Yeah, something similar was mentioned in the article. If this wasn't legal, they could just fire you, then offer to hire you under the new terms the next day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by rhino369 on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:31PM (#10075098)

I'd argue that is still fundamentally different than just requiring the signature to keep your job. Getting laid off has different consequences than quitting.

I realize most states disagree with me, but I think it's absurd. If at will employment is so meaningless that it's no different from being fired, it shouldn't even be consideration in the first place. These courts are treating at will employment as a meaningless promise in one scenario, but as having some value in another.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by kd0amg on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:47PM (#10075225)

Getting laid off has different consequences than quitting.

Yes, the first thing I wondered about this would be whether it's permissible to describe being handed the noncompete with an order to sign it or leave as termination with zero notice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by notacoward on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:49PM (#10075235)

Some companies routinely do this as part of an acquisition. One former employer started doing it right after the acquisition of which I was a part, when they didn't do it that way and subsequently found that the employee agreements they'd rammed down our throats weren't worth the paper they were written on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by jsprogrammer on Monday August 17, 2015 @01:56PM (#10074854)

>Can't employers impose pretty much any (legal) new requirements for at-will employees?

Either side can 'impose' any requirements they want on the other party. The other side can refuse to accept the new impositions.

The imposing party had better be ready to fulfill all their outstanding obligations immediately upon termination and/or rejection of new terms though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by s73v3r on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:30PM (#10075095)

Technically either side can. However, it's not a hard guess as to which side actually has the power to impose something like this. And it's not the employees.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-Compete Can Be Imposed Mid-Employment with No New Con... by jsprogrammer on Monday August 17, 2015 @05:59PM (#10076420)

An individual in large group of un-sympathetic co-employees has little power, but as a critical group of employees...they can basically impose whatever they want. They are the company, or at least enough of it to shut it down until their demands are met.

[ Parent | on HN ]