[sdiwakar]

I'm curious to know whether people in the US holding senior positions are not subjected to non-compete periods following their termination with their current employer (e.g. not working for a direct competitor for a period of 3 months etc.)?

It surprised me that Marrisa Mayer was allowed to quit Google and then start at Yahoo the very next day, is that common?

[Shank]

It's illegal in California to have a non-compete clause. It also only applies if one is fired from said previous employer, not one who's left at will.

[jimdanz]

"It's illegal in California to have a non-compete clause." Not quite. They're just unenforceable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California

"It also only applies if one is fired from said previous employer, not one who's left at will."

?

Are you referring to California here, or non-competes in general? If the latter, I'm, pretty sure that you're incorrect. " The use of such clauses is premised on the possibility that upon their termination or resignation, an employee might begin working for a competitor or starting a business,..." (top of same Wiki page)

[jpeg_hero]

Non-compete's are generally considered un-enforceable in California.

Also, fired/quit doesn't affect non-competes.

[Arelius]

Why would non-competes only apply if fired? I think they are in fact designed specifically to apply when the employee leaves on their own volition.

[enjo]

Huh? Every non-compete I've had forced down my throat (I've refused to sign the last several) was specifically guarding against me leaving the company for a competitor.

[mikeryan]

Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

Its CA law. From the business and professions code [1].

[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&#3...

[lusr]

A clause restraining you from engaging in your "profession, trade, or business", i.e. in general, is unenforceable. A clause restraining you from engaging with another party may or may not be unenforceable depending on the details.

In other words, nobody can enforce a clause preventing a programmer from programming for company B after leaving company A purely on the basis of restricting competition.

They may have a case if e.g. company B contracted company A to do some work and then bought out company A's programmer (e.g. to save money), but only if the contract between company A and the programmer in question has a restraint specifically penalizing this scenario.

(Even then, it doesn't mean companies will choose to enforce the contract. I've worked for companies where the restraint was between the companies A and B, and in the interest of preserving business relationships, company A decided not to pursue their legal right to recourse when company B poached an employee from A; the employee did not break conditions of their employment with A as the restraint was between their companies.)

[tlrobinson]

Employers can put all sorts of things in employement contracts to scare employees, but that doesn't mean they're enforceable.

[philwelch]

Her Yahoo offer letter does have a non-compete clause, but it's only in effect while she's still employed at Yahoo. Among other things, she can't own more than 1% of any competing business. She was at Google for a long time but I don't think she ever got that much stock.