- 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 10:54 am to yankeeundercover
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:54 am to yankeeundercover
quote:
I'd be fishing in the same talent pool to find candidates.
This issue has less to do with a non-competition agreement than it would a proprietary information issue. It is likely (though you don't know because you don't have the agreement)that your agreement has some trade secret/proprietary information restriction relating to the candidates you dealt with. A general talent pool is probably not proprietary, their lists with their candidate pool probably is.
Pre-SWAT24, when you could not prevent someone from competeting against you in La. as an employee (in some circuits, there was a conflict that was resolved in the SWAT24 case), you could still keep an ex-employee from using proprietary information because it is not within the bounds of 23:921.
0
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:54 am to chinhoyang
quote:
I'm surprised they would not draft it to cover competition as a sales manager or salesman.
i don't understand it.
We had our service manager leave about 2 years ago and go to the 2nd biggest competitor in our territory and get a job at their corporate level. I don't get why it matters in what capacity i work for the competitor. If i'm with the competitor as a salesman, manager or whatever else, i'm still with the competition and can use that to my advantage.
regardless, i can't see a scenario where i say i will not sign a non compete going over well. Has anyone said no when asked to sign one?
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:55 am to yankeeundercover
If you are working for a game development company and not using your former employer's lists of candidates, it seems unlikely that you sued (subject to all my prior disclaimers about legal advice).
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:56 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Has anyone said no when asked to sign one?
I've had that happen. If it is employment at will (no written term employment contract) sometimes the employer backs down, sometimes the employee gets fired.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 10:57 am to chinhoyang
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean.
If you're familiar with recruiting agencies you should know what I mean. Recruiting agencies hire contractors for plants, O&G work, etc. to work on a contractual basis.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:00 am to chinhoyang
quote:You mean CareerBuilder/Monster/LinkedIn/etc?
not using your former employer's lists of candidates
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:02 am to BobRoss
quote:There is no difference between permanent placement and contract/contract-to-hire in terms of how the recruiters work. It's a matter of business model of the agency. I've worked for both... but the 'work' is nearly identical. I'm sure there's no difference between the two from an NC standpoint.
Recruiting agencies hire contractors for plants, O&G work, etc. to work on a contractual basis.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:03 am to yankeeundercover
Contracts for contractors are certainly different than contracts for direct hire employees.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:05 am to BobRoss
quote:Of course, but as far as the recruiter is concerned, they're not even a factor. You go about sourcing candidates the same way for both... Payment schedules are all negotiated and the scope of the engagement is obviously different, but from a recruiters perspective, it doesn't matter.
Contracts for contractors are certainly different than contracts for direct hire employees.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:08 am to yankeeundercover
I think you're missing the point I was making, but regardless...
You need to look at your own contract and see if it lists specific parishes. That's where it could be trouble for you.
You need to look at your own contract and see if it lists specific parishes. That's where it could be trouble for you.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:11 am to yankeeundercover
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...
I get it, but even if the relationship were awful, they still would be left without recourse.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt you are worth the large expense of a fickle litigation process; few people are. Unless you're poaching accounts and employees, or are perceived as a legitimate threat to the business itself, you've got nothing to worry about.
Posted on 1/9/15 at 11:12 am to BobRoss
quote:I feel like we're both right in our own regard
I think you're missing the point I was making, but regardless
quote:Agreed. And what Third Leg said makes the most sense to me
You need to look at your own contract and see if it lists specific parishes.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News