[anonymouskimmer]

> Also even in CA where NC's are in theory non-enforceable, I know multiple people whose new employers did not want to test the water with very litigious firms and had people sit out the full NC.

It's a known effect that not working can take a physical toll on some people (i.e. the mortality effect of retirement - https://www.nber.org/bah/2018no1/mortality-effects-retiremen... ). I'm sure no one would ever do it, but I wonder if an employee would win if they sued both the old and new employer as co-conspirators to violate California's non-compete prohibition, citing the not-working health toll as their standing to sue.

[JohnFen]

> I know multiple people whose new employers did not want to test the water with very litigious firms and had people sit out the full NC.

How did those new employers learn about the noncompete?

[detroitcoder]

It comes up durring hiring processes. Pretty common to have someone ask, "Have you entered into any legal agreement that would prohibit you from working with us or have any conflict of interest? If so please explain."

[JohnFen]

Sure, but if you're in a place where noncompetes are not enforceable, the honest answer to that question is "no" even if you did sign one.

[ghaff]

Lying is not a great place to start off with a new employer.

[jjav]

It is not lying if the question is "Have you entered into any legal agreement that would prohibit..." when in California that agreement is void. That means there is nothing that would prohibit you.

For anyone who hasn't signed an employment contract in California, it'll have the boilerplate noncompete they use everywhere but it will also have an addendum page that says basically "the noncompete back on page x doesn't apply to you so ignore it".

[JohnFen]

But it's not lying, even a little.

[anonymouskimmer]

The GP comment made this statement, not mine.

[JohnFen]

Oops, sorry

[anonymouskimmer]

Turned out to be okay. I enjoyed reading the back and forth. :)