- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How enforceable are non-compete clauses in LA?
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:19 am to 756
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:19 am to 756
quote:
in LA it only covers the parish you are in- SO if your current business is based in Livingston Parish- you can work for a company in EBR
Your statement is untrue, and could get someone in trouble if they believe it.
23:921 reads, in part, "Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the employer and/or from soliciting customers of the employer within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment. "
Clearly, you can designate more than one city or parish (and I always do in drafting mine) in a non-compete.
0
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:20 am to TigerGman
quote:
They are enforced here in Louisiana and upheld all the time. Lot of people that act like internet lawyers get a big surprise when the sheriff serves them with a lawsuit that they're going to lose.
The key to a non-compete is that you have to be going to work in competition with your employer, which OP is not doing.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:20 am to Duckie
quote:
Most states I've ever dealt with laugh at non competes in the majority of cases
These agreements are also regularly enforced in Texsa. In fact, they are easier to enforce now in Texas than ten years ago.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:24 am to chinhoyang
really? That's pretty interesting as well? Is there not a basic reasonableness test in Texas?
This post was edited on 1/9/15 at 10:31 am
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:25 am to Duckie
quote:
I'm generally curious as to how LA handles these issues
Passed a law many years ago. You get a couple of simple things right in it the agreement is up held for up to 2 years. Court's don't have any choice.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:26 am to N2cars
quote:I don't see how I would be even CAPABLE of 'stealing' the business... Other than maybe from a 'sourcing candidates' aspect?
to prevent you from stealing their business and your new employer
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:27 am to The Third Leg
quote:That was my understanding as well..
The key to a non-compete is that you have to be going to work in competition with your employer, which OP is not doing.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:29 am to yankeeundercover
quote:
I don't see how I would be even CAPABLE of 'stealing' the business... Other than maybe from a 'sourcing candidates' aspect?
You wouldn't be, because you would not be in competition with your former employer, which is the basis of a non-compete agreement.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:31 am to Duckie
Texas created the "Covenants Not To Compete Act" in 2009. It wiped out some pro-employee decisions by the Courts.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:34 am to chinhoyang
but they're still not going to allow NC agreements against you typical employees, correct?
I'm assuming most states would allow a NC against those with sensitive information or proprietary information, but does Texas allow it against most employees?
I'm assuming most states would allow a NC against those with sensitive information or proprietary information, but does Texas allow it against most employees?
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:35 am to The Third Leg
quote:Not in a conventional aspect of course.. but an argument could be made that I'd be fishing in the same talent pool to find candidates... hmmm
because you would not be in competition with your former employer
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:38 am to yankeeundercover
I tend to think you don't have a problem, but without the agreement or specifics about both employers, it is hard to tell and you can't really render an opinion (and I'm not shilling for business, I don't represent employees as a general rule).
Remember, there are three ways to potentially get into trouble: (1) soliciting employees or customers of your former employer (in recruiting, the employer and not the candidates are the customers, but I've seen employers argue that candidates are customers too), engaging in a like or similar business (as employee or business owner), or by misusing proprietary information (typically, customer lists, candidate lists). The first two are covered in 23:921.
Here's why a message board is a bad forum: You've been very general about the new employer. Is the new employer a customer of your current employer? Is your in-house HR going to supplant the work performed by your prior employer? If so, was the connection obtained through your work at your former employer?
If this is true, the employer will be pissed because they are losing a customer. I've had this issue come up, but have never ended up litigating it because, as a practical matter, the first employer isn't likely to retain the business of that customer anyway.
Remember, there are three ways to potentially get into trouble: (1) soliciting employees or customers of your former employer (in recruiting, the employer and not the candidates are the customers, but I've seen employers argue that candidates are customers too), engaging in a like or similar business (as employee or business owner), or by misusing proprietary information (typically, customer lists, candidate lists). The first two are covered in 23:921.
Here's why a message board is a bad forum: You've been very general about the new employer. Is the new employer a customer of your current employer? Is your in-house HR going to supplant the work performed by your prior employer? If so, was the connection obtained through your work at your former employer?
If this is true, the employer will be pissed because they are losing a customer. I've had this issue come up, but have never ended up litigating it because, as a practical matter, the first employer isn't likely to retain the business of that customer anyway.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:39 am to chinhoyang
For recruiters or for contractors? Big difference.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:40 am to BobRoss
quote:
For recruiters or for contractors? Big difference.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:42 am to yankeeundercover
quote:
Not in a conventional aspect of course.. but an argument could be made that I'd be fishing in the same talent pool to find candidates... hmmm
The purpose of the business is different. End of story.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:43 am to BobRoss
I'm in sales and didnt' have to sign a noncompete, although all the other salesman have. I'm sure they haven't realized i didn't sign it yet and will have to.
What's stupid about them is that i can't transfer to my competitor as a salesman, lateral move, but if i transfer and become the sales manager, that's ok.
also, i'm pretty sure i can't just not sign it. But would i would like to say is, what do i get for signing this? Am i guaranteed a salary for x number of years or something?
What's stupid about them is that i can't transfer to my competitor as a salesman, lateral move, but if i transfer and become the sales manager, that's ok.
also, i'm pretty sure i can't just not sign it. But would i would like to say is, what do i get for signing this? Am i guaranteed a salary for x number of years or something?
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:47 am to Duckie
quote:
but they're still not going to allow NC agreements against you typical employees, correct?
There are some positions where you cannot "compete", though neither the Texas or Louisiana statute delineates where that point is. Clearly, a welder, store clerk, etc. doesn't "compete" when they go to work for a new employer.
Almost without exception, all of the non-competes that I write or deal with involve sales, professional positions, positions which involve inventions and other proprietary information, upper-level management positions, and positions where the employee has some level of control over customers.
You also see them where the employer has spent some money recruiting the employee (e.g. hiring nurses from the Phillipines).
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:49 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
What's stupid about them is that i can't transfer to my competitor as a salesman, lateral move, but if i transfer and become the sales manager, that's ok.
I'm surprised they would not draft it to cover competition as a sales manager or salesman.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:49 am to chinhoyang
quote:Game development company
You've been very general about the new employer.
quote:Not now or ever.
Is the new employer a customer of your current employer?
quote:Not following..
Is your in-house HR going to supplant the work performed by your prior employer?
quote:I'm familiar with the new employer because of the scope of my current position because we work in the same industry (IT)
If so, was the connection obtained through your work at your former employer?
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:51 am to The Third Leg
quote:I'm hoping based on the current relationship being good and the fact that you just stated will make this all a non-starter.. just trying to be thorough...
The purpose of the business is different. End of story
But I understand that without seeing the NC language, it's hard to offer 100% valid advice.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News