[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

[Dan Rosenthal]

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_of_California
>
> "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 at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2008, Nathan <nawrich at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l