I don't know about HP, but a common tactic is present a noncompete few weeks before a mass layoff and stipulate it is: "Sign or be fired". In some states, this works because your future employment can be viewed as sufficient consideration.

IMHO Noncompetes should be banned, or there needs to be legislation which requires the employer to pay 100% of the salary of the laid off person for the rest of the term of the noncompete. If they want to prevent the ex-employee from going into business and competing against them, they need to pay the ex-employee for the privilege.

I would assume they are in a very defensive mode and are thinking about liabilities and risks as they continue to hemorrhage employees and potential revenue. This makes it much more likely that they would try to protect themselves through any legal means possible. No company would plan on laying off 20k+ people without thinking about minimizing their liabilities and protecting their sources of business.

Often times this stipulation can be part of a severance package.

Do not underestimate hilarity of corporate legal.

He has probably already signed one as part of his employment.

If you're laid off, that probably doesn't apply anymore. It would have to be negotiated as part of the severance package.

Said package usually includes those items even though in many places it's totally unenforceable.