|
My employer wants to transfer me to the US and I'm boggling at the big fat non-compete clause in my contract which would essentially prevent me from working in my industry for 12 months in the US and the EU. I work in Europe at the moment and my contract currently has no non-compete. The contract is drawn up under New York law for a job in NY. How enforceable is it? What happens if I do go back to Europe to work would local standards apply to the US non-compete clause or would it be enforced even if the contract would not have been legal if signed in Germany for example? Also the contract language includes the following [which I have] highlighted in italics: "Because of the Company Group's legitimate business interest as described herein and the good and valuable consideration offered to the Employee, during the Employment Term and for the twelve (12) months period, to run consecutively, beginning on the Termination Date, the Employee agrees and covenants not to engage in Prohibited Activity within the US and the member states of the EU." Does that mean that if they should continue to pay me a certain amount whilst I am affected by the non compete clause? I can't find the considerations due during the 12 month period detailed anywhere (from what I can tell anyway). Is it generally detailed in a particular other clause of the contract? Munin fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 22, 2017 |
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Noncompetes vary by jurisdiction. Most european ones allow restrictions with a max of 1-2 years, but they also require compensation except in the UK. Thanks. I had a quick look at what flies and doesn't in various countries and places. As far as enforceability in various places go the only definite thing I could find is California which just goes nu-uh. Nothing really about how it would be treated in the EU or if they could just sue me in the US and let EU courts and their standards go hang. Man it is annoying that so much of the paperwork is getting sorted last minute... I also edited my post a touch to make clear I added the italics. Anyone come across wording like that in their contracts and if so know what that actually guarantees if anything?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Binding arbitration, when you think even the judges who have been waving your industry's poo poo through for decades are likely to look askance at your current shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:The police then arrest the purchaser for possession and the auctioneer for distribution. You mean it even got the chance to leave the lockup legitimately?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I think one of the things that should be repeatedly highlighted is that "hire a lawyer" doesn't spending thousands to retain a crack legal team but spending a small sum of money for some basic advice and to make sure the letter that is sent doesn't come to bite you in the rear end later. Most stuff never goes to trial etc since that it expensive for everyone involved and if you hired a lawyer to get the letter right at the outset it also makes it much less likely they can find anything to get you for. Anyway, is there any way to get something in the OP to give people an idea of what getting a lawyer to look at a small routing matter might cost since so many people who wander in here seem to be under the impression that hiring a lawyer is the nuclear option that will cost a fortune rather than a sensible decision like checking with a surveyor whether the wall you are about to knock down in your house is load bearing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Maybe you should stay awhile and listen *skeleton listening to gramophone*
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Adar posted:"Surely this new sexual assault allegation will derail the nomination", says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this month Then they'd just nominate a still hateful but not rapey judge off the list, get him (or the lone potential her though that is unlikely since Trump found her insufficiently deferential) rammed through in the lame duck session and they would then be on the court for ages since whilst still shamelessly partisan they were still clever enough to stay on the right side of the impeachability line. My preference would be for Kavanaugh to get rammed through, the truth then to come out and him getting impeached off the court (cue unprecedented legal drama).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
[edit] ^^ Not an option I'd have considered.joat mon posted:Less snarky answer: No. Assuming it's a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver (attorney and competent client discuss the right, the pros and cons of waiving, reasons for waiving etc.) it's probably never going to be found to be ineffective counsel. Waiving street clothes is going to be viewed as a strategic decision, which an appeals court will heavily defer to. It's also going to be hard to meet the requirement to show that the result of the trial would have been different if defendant had been dressed in street clothes. What strategic discussion leads to the decision that it would be a great look for the jury that you look like a convict?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Paul ReiserFS posted:Can someone advise on what may be considered “joint property” in the case of my widowed Mother In Law? Multiple (but hopefully not adversarial) parties and money at stake. Add that the paperwork and wishes of the deceased are pretty unclear. That is definitely a "get a lawyer" situation. The only big question is whether you will be able to get away with paying one lawyer as a family to straighten out the paperwork. Out of curiosity, have you discussed who is going to be handling the process? Is you mother in law on speaking terms with her husband's other kids? Are you? Munin fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:It's funny cause it's true. That's why the thread title.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes and no. Generally speaking, you can only have a life insurance policy on someone that you have an "insurable interest" in, which just means your neighbor Sam can't take out a life insurance policy on you. Usually this means immediate family. But...you could have yourself as the beneficiary and then have your estate direct those funds to your hypothetical trust. Now, you can't have an enforceable contract to procure illegal activity...but Trump can consent to getting kicked in the testicles, at least in most states. That's probably not what you're looking for, though. Now would Trump let himself be kicked in the testicles if it was for a significant share of a large life insurance payout? He's sold his dignity and good name for less. Again, not what the OP would be looking for though I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Wait so you're saying someone who is a lawyer but doesn't specifically practice estate law isn't 100% correct about an estate finance question? Gosh, that must mean estate law and finance are so complicated that you need someone who specifically works in that area to help, huh? If you want to see what happens when a lawyer practices way outside their competency look at the recent lawsuit involving Vic Mignogna. In that case an estate lawyer tried to litigate a defamation case. It went badly for him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:I'm having trouble finding somewhere that lays the whole story out. How exactly did his lawyers screw up? You can start by the lawyer having guided a deposition of his client which made clear that substantial parts of the defendants' allegations, and hence statements, were true. That is usually pretty damaging to a defamation case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
tinytort posted:Also, he may have been getting advice from a friend who was sourcing this advice from a Discord server. And said friend is the one who put together the GoFundMe that Mignonga is using to pay for all of this, and never actually asked Mignonga if he wanted or needed one. Oh, the lawyer was also the trustee of the trust fund of said friend. Hence, estate lawyer litigating a defamation case. The friend was also releasing regular YouTube videos sharing privileged client information shared by the lawyer and publicly discussing litigation strategies. Munin fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It would be worse with juries I guess but people are generally really pretty good at telling when someone is lying or not telling the truth Sorry to pick that up from a page or so back but I did want to call out that people in general are awful at telling whether someone is lying or not. Study after study has shown that people are no better than chance at telling lie from truth when asked to judge based on statement and demeanor alone. That people are decent at it is a very dangerous and common misconception.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What studies Look, when most of the studies, articles and literature start with statements like "Decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting lies." (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-13176-001), Google searches for "why are humans good at detecting deception" come up with articles like these as the first hits "The End of Detecting Deception" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/spycatcher/201807/the-end-detecting-deception), you kinda should take it just about as read as that hiring a professional to field most legal matter is a good idea. Note that research has shown that training apparently does have a slight to medium positive effect (e.g. https://forums.somethingawful.com/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=499535889, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1068316x.2010.535820) but the positive impact was heavily dependent on the precise training in question, the type of lie told etc and ultimately turned people from as good as chance to statistically slightly better than change. Law enforcement officials routinely overestimate their ability to detect liars. Also, lol at "Also trials aren’t “statement and demeanor alone “ " given the number of trials which turned on witness evidence alone or the high number of instances, trials and otherwise, when it is simply one person's word against another's. Not to mention all the jury follow up interviews where it becomes clear that the ruling hinged on the jury's impression of a witness. Yeah, sometimes the police and prosecutors have someone dead to rights. They have a mycrimes.txt written by the defendant or a clear video of the crime and the defendant stupidly staring at the camera but often is also comes down to how credibly expert witnesses, prosecutors, etc come across. It's part of the reason why there are some pretty tight rules about closing arguments etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
nm posted:What is your solution for replacing jurors? The judge who is thinking about his next election? Let me let out yet another hearty guffaw at the concept of elected judges. In many cases impartial professional third parties like (non-elected) judges and arbitrators do do a better job than untrained, naive jurors. Judging by his posts that the system euphronius seems to favor as being great and accurate. I think that view is too rosy for a wide variety of reasons. One example would many arbitrators where one party represents repeat business and the other does not. That said I still have a romantic attachment to the concept of juries due to basic democratic principles. It seems that the current system is set up to keep jurors confused, bewildered and prepped to go with their gut. They will have been presented with two plausible contradicting stories, evidence for each which they will have mostly forgotten (because who takes good notes?) and ultimately they will mostly remember the conviction with which each sides misrepresented the evidence in order to win their case. Not to mention that jurors are people who have essentially been asked to watch a play featuring actors they don't know, with a muddled plot, half in a language they do not understand, potentially over the course of several days, without nodding off or thinking about the really hot court reporter, and then agree on a summary of the plot afterwards. Frankly I believe juries should be given better support to marshall all this. What is your thinking on the topic nm? Munin fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Oct 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:“In my experience (as a lawyer)” Well, you could kick off with the fact that in general Police are no better than lay people: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221706527_How_good_are_police_officers_at_spotting_lies And generally hold the same preconceptions about liars as lay people: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156615&type=printable Now, I can't find any research (either positive or negative) about the capabilities of arbitrators and I already spent too long on this internet slapfight. That said all research I have found shows that in general laypeople and professionals seriously overestimate their ability to figure out whether someone is making a true statement. I think it would be naive to contend that those overconfident assessments do not impact the assessment of a case or other situation. I would be very interested to hear about any research you have on hand pointing to the superior capabilities of "fact finders". My closing would be that it has been shown that a wide variety of people, some of whom it is a core part of their profession, are awful at discerning whether someone is dissembling or not. In many cases, both civil and criminal, rely on professionals or jurors to assess whether a witness is making a truthful statement. This is especially the case in instance of rape, harassment, and other disputes where physical evidence is limited. I would also include many labor disputes in that category. Now, people can be trained to at least do better, to examine their biases, to be informed about what are in fact awful markers to judge whether someone is lying or not, to have a sounder view of how much weight they should put on witness statements. None of this is provided to jurors or professionals and to make things worse many professionals are in fact mis-trained. work should be done to address this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
nm posted:I don't love the idea of even unelected people basically acting as triers of facts in criminal cases, regardless of training. Working in the crminal justice system too long makes you bitter and cynical and makes you think everyone is lying. You start thinking of yourself as part of the law enforcement team. Plus you see the same cops over and over and as you learn about them, it gives them an unfair testimonial advantage over a defendant who they've either never seen, or seen in court 10 other times accused of some poo poo. Yeah, definitely all good points. Justice is a hard system to get right and there are always trade-offs one way or another. I voiced similar concerns you do about judges as finders of fact in regards to arbitrators which are in a similar situation. I would be much more comfortable with juries if the system was reviewed and more effort made to make sure that they are making these determinations in the way we would expect them to. That things are set up so it is easier for them to do so. Jurors get less prep and training than my intern does. nm posted:Yes, I know a lot of other countries do that. I don't know what their wrongful conviction rates are. However, I would caution that the US's seemingly high wrongful conviction rate (I'd argue that any wrongful conviction is too high, but that's beyond this argument) is certainly helped by the death penalty causing a much greater interest in wrongful convictions, which attracts lawyers to the field as well as the people who pay them. Even the limited scrutiny the US system gets is much more than the systems in other countries do. There is an awful lot wrong with the US justice system but at least there is a space for innocence projects and the like. I do think a good bit of the relatively higher false conviction rates are due to that, I don't trust the numbers in other countries to be a good reflection of actual false conviction rates since many of the issues in the US also exist there. That said I am sure that the false conviction rates, based on exonerations achieved, are also not a true reflection of the problem. That is not even going into how the majority of the system runs on plea deals.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:lmao if you don't steal from your family. On the topic of family, stealing and wills. I am not looking forward to the mess when my spiteful grandfather dies and the intermingled assets between him and my uncles need to be sorted out (my mother had a falling out with him decades ago after he screwed her and my father over a large sum of money so hopefully should only be caught in the by-blow). He has assets in all sorts of jurisdictions and his own personal take on reality and legality. Lawyers will definitely be involved. I am very thankful that my parents have properly drawn up wills etc and have clearly communicated the general arrangements to us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Pillowpants, if you came to this thread then I should mention that, as long as you haven't in fact written a whole bunch of libelous things, there are lawyers out there who might very well take you case up pro-bono. Well, if you are in the US at least. There are a slew of organizations out there set up to defend the first amendment and lawyers who take that up as a cause. Out of curiosity, which state are you being sued in, which state do you live, and where does the guy suing you live? It makes a big difference since some states have strong anti-SLAPP statutes and others do not. Also, did you write that article in a professional capacity and is your employer hanging you out to dry? If you were blogging by yourself did you do any research about your potential legal exposure before publishing that blog post? [edit] I know that this guy: https://twitter.com/Popehat has helped amplify shouts for legal assistance for first amendment matters before. [re-edit] But yeah, the general thread advice still stands, find some way of getting hold of a lawyer. Munin fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:It was on Grant Stern’s website. He said he’s already got a pro bono lawyer, and he is pushing to fight it. kk, that's at least something. Who is being sued and are you personally one of the defendants? Who exactly is the pro-bono lawyer representing? You might very well still need your own lawyer to advise and represent you on some matters since, if they are not your lawyer, they might do something that might disadvantage you if it improves the position of their actual client. [edit] basically what AlbieQuirky said but more verbose. There is this list online of groups which can put you in touch with lawyers: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/nonprofit-legal-assistance
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Looks like AZ has an Anti-Slapp statute: https://anti-slapp.org/arizona If they are full of hubris it is good news since it's easier to get them to gently caress of (based on the assessment and advice of your lawyer and probably some monkeying about in court). If they have a good lawyer it means that they assessed their case and found that it has a very good chance of clearing these hurdles which makes having proper legal representation on your (Pillowpants) side all the more important. The bit about them apparently being able to point to actual damages they suffered would definitely make me more worried if I was on the receiving end of that suit. IANAL etc though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
The thing is that if your neighborhood is made up of crotchety, passive aggressive, property value fetishizing, fuckwits then they'll end up being nightmare neighbors HOA or no HOA. They'll just use different tools to get their way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
Never owned a house and am a city boy at heart so my pet peeve isn't HOAs but their urban equivalent. The people who move into a nice lively neighborhood and then proceed to kill everything off with noise and police complaints. Good for their property values, bad for all the people and businesses who were in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
The other thing to note in the college professor thing is that I've seen just as many attempts, if not more, to drum university professors out of their jobs for mentioning LGBTQ people positively in class or saying that the Palestinians might not universally be terrorists etc. The same laws that prevent them getting kicked out by right wing outrage mobs is also keeping people with racists views in place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
One key thing is to be transparent on the application. If you are honest you have a chance of passing, if you are not then you are hosed unless you have something like your last name being Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:IANAL, but I did used to work support for medical billing software, and the proportion of doctor's offices whose biller's primary qualification is "married to the doctor" is substantial. The ideal US small family business.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I've had a complaint made against me as a staff member by a student. First thing is not to make statements about it in public. Do not be Rudi Giuliani, or any of the other fuckwits blabbing about their crimes on TV. Then talk to a lawyer because what little you did share could be cast in a very bad bad light. [edit] by blabbing about it online you might get a lot of people telling you how unfair the entire thing is on you. It will make you feel good about things. Then you will make overconfident stupid judgements. You stupid overblown online statements will be used against you. You will have a bad time of it. And at its worst you might end up the subject of the next incarnation of the Vic Mignogna thread. Munin fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Dec 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
The thing for me is how there are generally two types of people who end up in the thread: 1. People who hesitantly ask if something is serious and whether it's worth talking to a lawyer. For them the answer generally is: "Hell yes it's serious get a lawyer now." . 2. People who storm into the thread saying their problem is serious and they need to take legal action now, and so forth. In contrast the general answer there is: "You're just pissed at someone and the legal system will get you neither money nor satisfaction and will in fact most likely cost you both."
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Very very rarely we get someone with a genuine intellectual curiosity over how the law works. On that note, how does a President vetoing a bill based on the Congress' war powers work? I also thought that it was fairly uncontroversial that executive branches on individual states could impose quarantines...
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
The madness of the Disney thing is just as much, if not more, about the madness of US corporate culture than US corporation law. Man, I should dig up a case I came across due to a family connection who knew the people which involved a vanishing will, misogyny, a crooked lawyer, etc after a company founder without close relatives died leaving a free for all for control of the company.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
I'm sure he is just talking about a person unfamiliar with Fay law.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
So, what's the recourse if you are a reporter who got their eye shot out by a cop?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2020 01:11
|
|