Similarly, many states (california included) void binding arbitration clauses in employment contracts as contracts of adhesion (due to the disparity in power between the parties), and thus unconscionable. (I bring that up, because, like non-competes, it was an example provided).
-Dan On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Chad wrote:
Our article on the subject would seem to say so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Enforceability_in_the_State_...
"Unlike the situation in other states, non-compete agreements are illegal in California and against public policy." It goes on to list some exemptions, none of which apply to the WMF.
-Chad
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/04/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm guessing there aren't too many folks familiar with United States employment law among the folks debating and speculating on this list. I submit that this is probably not the sort of thing we want determined by a consensus of amateurs. Lots of people don't like ND agreements, but they don't like binding arbitration, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements either. Even so, they are fairly common and effective. As a matter of fact, I think than an ND for the Board is somewhat less unusual than an ND for employees.
I understood noncompetes were legally void in California in any case.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l