[jvreagan]

I would like to understand whether there are any states that even occasionally backs the employer in non-competes for the general layperson. In my experience, courts tend to side with someone who's willing to work over employers.

This is why non-competes are a joke in the US. Courts aren't going to enforce them. Almost every state has an industry where moving between companies, or starting companies to compete with existing companies, exist (midwest auto industry, New York financial industry, Texas energy, etc).

It's great that California is so explicit. I wish other states would follow suit. But the only times I've ever seen a court uphold a non-compete is for highly (8 figures) compensated employees.

[throw1234651234]

Can you elaborate on this? Are you a lawyer? Do you follow cases? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know.

[wombatpm]

I think that Massachusetts takes the anti-California approach. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have really pushed for string enforceable NCC

[ghaff]

Companies like EMC also pushed for them.

But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.