Absurd activist judge? Employee acknowledges he signed non-compete - but the reasons...
He admits he signed non-compete. (A vary narrowly defined non compete - only applies to client(s) he was assigned to support.) The client was not paying his employer, so his employer issued stop work. He immediately went to work for the client who was not paying his employer. (and the client is paying his legal bills - tortious interference, is it not).
Employee's defense? "I needed the job" (aka I wanted the money)
Apparently the judge considers this a VALID defense!
Answers (0)
No answers were found for this question.
