Lee Anderson said:
Earlyriser said:
In this economy, they expect you to turn down work in the same market they dumped you in?
I know that here in Australia, non-competes (generally) aren't worth the paper they're written on, as they have been legally proven to be a restraint of trade. I'm guessing that US courts don't see it that way.
IIRC and IANAL, but there are a lot of factors that go into how enforceable a noncompete is (in general, not specifically broadcasting), and varies greatly by jurisdiction (
http://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-con...competes-50-State-Survey-Chart-12-12-2010.pdf ). These include whether you leave voluntarily or were RIFed or were fired for cause (the less control the employee has over the situation, the less enforceable it is, with being RIFed considered to be low control, voluntarily leaving high control, and fired for cause in the middle, depending on the circumstances), and the definition of a competitor (the narrower it is, the more enforceable it is), and how much of a competitive impact the employer could reasonably expect to sustain (the less impact, the less enforceable). In a bad economy/tight job market, a court might also consider an overly broad noncompete to be unconscionable, especially in the case of a termination w/o cause. Note that in a handful of jurisdictions, broadcasters get some exemptions from these rules.
The general principle is that the employer has to expect some significant "competitive disadvantage" to result if a specific employee goes to a competitor, and you cannot prevent an employee from earning a living in their current/immediately previous line of work.
Of course, contesting these "gray areas" would likely require you to lawyer up to take on a large corporation (with bigger and badder lawyers) in court, and by the time it goes to trial the noncompete might be up anyway, and the previous employer might seek an injunction enforcing the noncompete in the meantime.
