non compete is bs.a contract signed under duress is invalid.its a con on you.imho.
technically you dont compete against them anyways,you compete against the other employees at your new job.
Technically you probably haven't signed such an agreement. Can you please explain to me how you can sign a non-compete 'under duress'?
Trixxi, in my experience with MMC's and employers in general, my opinion is that most of these agreements are put in place to prevent negative press, I assume things like improper IPM protocols, METRC compliance, and if you know stuff you shouldn't, like where the bodies are buried. However, there are members here in the ownership side of the industry that might be able to provide more info about why they do non-competes. Second and more importantly, non-competes are notoriously difficult to enforce, as your old employer would have to be able to prove you stole trade secrets or IP or otherwise violated the agreement. Remember they have to spend money and resources to enforce the document you signed, and I assume your new employer probably isn't interested in discussing how you may or may not have violated a non-compete with a prior employer and competitor.
Most non-compete issues in this state are in the medical field, for example preventing a doctor from moving to a different practice taking clients with them. That would be a reason to require a non-compete.
I wouldn't be concerned if I were you, but I have no idea what your risk profile is, and obviously IANAL.
NON-COMPETE, NON-DISCLOSURE,
AND NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSES
IN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
"In general, a covenant not to compete may exist either as a separate contract or as a
provision in a more comprehensive employment contract. Covenants not to compete typically
seek to prohibit employees from working in related and competing businesses for a certain length
of time after leaving their employer. Non-competition provisions may also seek to prevent past
employees from using or disclosing the employer’s confidential information, or from soliciting
other employees who possess confidential knowledge to work at competing businesses. Courts
have not looked favorably upon covenants not to compete because those provisions may severely
restrict an individual’s choices for alternate employment and ability to earn a living. In fact,
Colorado law renders covenants not to compete void unless those provisions fit into one of the
narrowly construed statutory exceptions."
and
"Therefore, covenants not to compete in contracts controlling employment relationships are unenforceable except for:
(a) Any contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business;
(b) Any contract for the protection of trade secrets;
(c) Any contract provision providing for recovery of the expense of educating
and training an employee who has served an employer for a period of less
than two years;
(d) Executive and management personnel and officers and employees who
constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel."
Sources:
(1 The authors acknowledge the assistance of Taylor T. Pollock, /Esq. and Carrie Lynn H. Okizaki, the firm’s law
clerk, in preparing these materials.
2 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2) (1999)
3 Neil Caesar, J.D., “A Too-Tough Noncompete Clause Could Defeat Its Own Purpose” Managed Care Magazine
(Nov. 1996).
4 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2).)
