now what?

S

sickofit

Registered Users (C)
I have only one signed contract from 1998 ( sept/oct ), and since then I have been thru 2 company acquistions ( company A and B now working for company C ). Finally I am unhappily working for company C with no signed contract and its been about 1 year that I am in process of the I-485.

I would appreciate any input with regards to the following:

I am considering leaving company C, but face the possibility of 'breeching' the anti competitive clause because I will return to work back at the client.
Having said this, I do repeat that I have no signed contract since 1998 ( a now non-existent company A ), and the perks and benefits have changed much to my disadvantage with C.
To add a cherry on top, in my first year I was paid a salary below the prevailing wage rate at the time ( which as I understand it, is illegal ).
So, cut a longwinded message , the corporate ( company B ), during their completion of the merger/sale with C, released other consultants without any strings attached because they all had GC's.

I figure that given all the above bits of information, surely I am entitled to leave without being held to any contractual clauses, after all being paid below prevailing wage rate ( first year ), and other contractors being released without hassles ( unfair if I am the only one held to 'contract' ) would be enough for us to part without any restrictions.

Many thanks,
SickOfIt
 
This is a contractual question. Only a lawyer can answer your questions after seeing the contract.
But if you are sure that the validity of the 1998 contract has expired, you can find another employer and exercise AC21..
 
sickofit

I have dealt a lot with non-compete contracts. While, I am not a lawyer and everything depends on the nature of contract that you signed, it's my duty to bring forward some points, which you should carefully consider.

Please do consult a lawyer (It won't cost you more than 100 bucks for formal consultation in this matter).

1) Most of American courts do not like non-compete. It fundamentally conflicts with the capitalism.

2) If non-compete is restricting you to earn your living, most likely court will be sympathetic towards you.

3) If company A was acquired by B and in turn, by C. Company C automatically owns your contract and holds the right to implicate you.

4) If client is on your side, you have a trump card. Company C needs more business from the client would not want it's image tainted with the client. If you play this card well, company C will swallow this pill happily.
 
which state are you in check you state laws. I now it doe't work in California. There were couple of cases where ppl won handsome amout after filing court cases in Bay area.
 
Many thanks for the wise words of advice. I guess with so many clouded issues a lawyer would be the obvious bet. I still do think that a coporate would rather let a consultant go than have an unhappy employee who wouldn't be doing their best work. Such a case would imply that both parties are better off by parting and severing all ties. O well, what a tangled web there is..

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top