The Court framed the issue as:
…whether non-competition agreements require additional consideration beyond continued at-will employment before binding agreements are formed. The issue arises if a current employee is required to sign such an agreement as a condition of continued employment, without any further benefits or consideration.
So, this isn't really anything new for jurisdictions that support at-will employment and don't require reasons for termination. Not really any different than an employer telling you your expected duties have changed. You still have the option to quit, they still have the option to fire you.
While you can technically make changes to an employment contract in th UK without requiring a new signature, agreement from the employee is required. If an employer tries to enforce changes without agreement, an employment tribunal will almost certainly rule in an employee's favour.
> Following on from this, a contract of employment does not need to be signed for it to be a binding agreement between the parties as acceptance of its terms can be either verbal or implied through conduct.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2715470/I...
Add to this, the UK courts are often upholding extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the "right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time." Extremely unilateral power. The UK courts see no problem with it at all. Quite insane.
It would be good to see some examples of court upholding "extremely unilateral employment contract clauses that give the employer the 'right to change the contract without the employee's permission at any time.'" – not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in where this is happening. Unfair employment contracts are a bit of a political issue right now.
I know that if an employee doesn't agree with contract changes, they should take action immediately; continuing to work and not expressing your disagreement with the changes after you've been informed of them can be construes as implied agreement.
Employment law in the UK seems pretty worker-friendly in the sense that most companies will take great pains to avoid the risk of employment tribunals and other employee action, but I concede it's a bit less formalised than in other jurisdictions.
If you are terminated with cause you can't collect unemployment benefits or Cobra.
I suspect that this will vary from state to state.
If the workers signed a new non-compete and then continued to work for the company, this ruling seems pretty obvious.
If this is something like adding in a non-compete to an existing employment agreement without needing to obtain a new signature (as the completely insane UK laws allow,) then this is very bad.