The problem is it won't get as far as trial, if the old company gets wind of it early enough (and they often do). The old company will reach out to the new company and politely inform them they believe they have grounds for a noncompete suit. The new company will either indemnify the worker, or (far more often) drop them as not worth the hassle, and take their #2 choice.

The legislation needs to change. The situation as it stands is ripe for barratry and bullying.

I know at least one person who joined a Michigan startup, moved over, got sued by non compete, and the new employer just didnt want any hassle and laid them off. This person had to leave country then.

The take home is dont take tech jobs in states where non-compete clauses are still legal.

> No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently wealthy.

The first part is probably usually true, because places where non-competes are enforceable generally will not enforce them if they are overly broad.

But for tech workers there are almost always other jobs that the worker can qualify for and pay similarly to their old job but are not covered by the non-compete and then then non-competes do get enforced even though the worker is not independently wealthy.

A fairly recent example [1].

[1] https://callaborlaw.com/blog/former-draftkings-employee-lose...

I don't think this is quite true. in my industry & city, noncompetes are very common and commonly enforced.

I lost a job because of one. In nyc. Company made some threats and the offer was pulled.