Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire FTC - Non-Competes

FTC determined today that non-competes - no longer are enforceable.

The Final Rule will prohibit employers from entering into NEW non-competes with ALL workers.
✔ The Rule broadly defines "workers" to include individuals who are paid or unpaid, and the definition encompasses employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices, sole proprietors who provides services to a person, and individuals who work for a franchisee or franchisor.
✔ The Final Rule will prohibit employers from enforcing or attempting to enforce EXISTING non-competes against workers, except that employers may enforce EXISTING non-competes against senior executives. The FTC found that senior executives, unlike other workers, are more likely to negotiate, and be compensated for, their non-competes.
✔ With respect to workers other than senior executives, employers must rescind, and notify workers that they will not enforce, non-competes after the effective date of the Final Rule.


I believe FTC considers a "senior executive" to be someone making more than 152k a year AND have policy making decision rights.

Something like 18% of US workers have one. I have a couple but not-enforced based on gentleman's agreement and one timed out I think.

That said - I get it, I've a friend whose particular Moby Dick are non-competes and some of the stories he's told me as an attorney.... Secretaries being told they can't be a secretary after leaving a role because of it, not allowed to work in fast food for others, etc.

No real info on non-solicit or non-disparage (have those too) agreements tho.

I'd assume this ends up litigated. Some feel that the FTC doesn't have authority to invalidate contracts already entered into by parties.

In freight - especially brokerage, it's VERY common to sign up fresh out of college, sign a non-compete, get fired in the first 6 months (or quit) and not be allowed to work as a broker for 3 years after. Certain brokerages are known for them and known for holding employees to them - regardless of position.

Wish this would of happened years ago.

I've fought a few and always won, but the lawyers took a lot of money from me fighting it.

That's the problem - money. Most kids fresh outta college and in their first "big kids" job don't have it and why a lot of places abuse that. I knew of one freight broker that advertised "come over to us, even if you have a non-compete and we'll fight it for you" but then they signed them to a monster non-solicit which was just as bad. It's all BS.

Sheeeeeeeeew buddy.



On one hand, this could be a really good thing for the brokers, doctors and such that are fresh out of school and get canned.

On the other hand, should government really be regulating private contracts?

By getting judges to file injunctions against operating business to keep someone from earning a living, you could argue that's the business they've been in for a long time.

Did the employer trust the persons arm to sign the non-compete?

That will be the litigant's point of view. Then again - is the contract predatory and does it violate someone's civil rights? Dunno. I mean, my gut tells me "You fired me or I quit - I should be able to walk down the street and work for someone else in the same industry" and the contract says I can't and I don't need the .gov telling me what contracts are/aren't ok. Yet they do in so many other areas.

IME - most non-competes end up in front of the signer in the "onboarding paperwork" after an offer of employment. So now what? You sign and walk through without understanding because you don't want to be looking for work again?

I'm torn - I get it, you should know better but also, in most instances - the non-compete is punitive to the employee, has NOTHING to do with actual competition. Non-solicits cover competition and that I understand much more than a non-compete. I'll sign a non-solicit all the time because as a sales guy or whatever, my clients love me - I won't solicit them but they can find me pretty easy on LinkedIn to figure out where I went and solicit the company for a change in vendor themselves.

I think that’s the key. It’s one thing for a client to follow you of their own volition. But an employer should have some sort of actionable case against an employee who actively solicits clients to follow them - especially while they’re still working for the company.

Stealing client lists is even worse. That’s a privacy breach and should be criminal.

That would break NDA and privacy clauses, which you presumably have if you have a non-compete.

Yes, NDA and non-solicits cover this.

Non-competes basically say "I know you flipped burgers for us here at McDonalds and I fired you but you're not allowed to work in the restaurant industry for 3 years now" and that's a REAL non-compete that was in place - per my attorney friends.

Similar - Truck driver, freight brokers etc - you can get FIRED but then not make money in the industry for years - based upon the non-compete.

Dude gets sued twice.

I have had a few in my career. At my last job they had an especially onerous one that I refused to sign after I had an attorney look at it. Went back to them and said changes needed to be made and never heard about it again. Ended up being with the company another five years.