This. I've worked in the New York metro area for my entire working career, and non-competes are one reason why California will always, always win when it comes to fostering startups. From what I can tell, no other state has made them illegal, and none ever will because they're in the interest of employers.
Washington has it, but Microsoft and Amazon were able to water it down so that it excludes higher compensated employees ($107k salary for 2022, which basically excludes people in tech/medicine/law/engineering). Foolish decision by WA legislators, especially when they are in prime position to poach business in the same time zone as CA with only a nominal state income tax.
Out of curiosity, how do these non-competes work with remote work situations? Are they applicable to the state the business is in or the state the worker is in? Is this one of the reasons so many software companies are pushing to get coders back in the office, just to get rid of these little legal questions?
Good question. Seems like it could get hairy. I would have assumed the employee’s state of residence takes precedence, but then there is this case where CA courts upheld a non compete that was entered into in MI before the employee moved to CA:
I'd emphasize "one reason" and de-emphasize "always" :)
The site linked above likes to throw cold water on the idea that non-competes are bad for workers, startups, etc (e.g., ND and OK aren't famous for their tech industries), see blog posts at https://faircompetitionlaw.com/ ... my bias is the other way (particularly enjoying https://ssrn.com/abstract=2517604), but the evidence is complex. Fortunately the aforementioned changes should generate new evidence.
