Non-Compete in Contract...

[duckyduck]

I have a job I'm interested in but the noncompete clause is giving me major pause and I'm curious if this seems at all reasonable or normal:

Position would be working mainly in a residential setting, although I'd flex inpatient and PHP because the company has all settings under its umbrella. The noncompete as currently written prohibits me from working in any setting for one year after leaving the company without written prior permission including inpatient, academic, residential, partial hospitalization settings ANYWHERE in the US. I tried to clarify and negotiate on this, and the message I received was that the noncompete didn't include an outpatient psychiatric practice so it is reasonable as written and does not prohibit me from making a living. And of course I can always "ask for permission" to work in one of the other settings before leaving which *is generally* granted.

This makes me nervous. Yes, I did speak with a contract lawyer. He said he had never seen something like it and felt it wasn't really... legally enforceable in his view. But mainly I am curious if any of y'all have seen something like this and if this isn't as bizarre as I think it is.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Never seen such a thing. I agree that as written, it is essentially unenforceable and likely a scare tactic.

 

[hamstergang]

The noncompete as currently written prohibits me from working ... ANYWHERE in the US.

I generally think many, especially on this forum, are a little too strong in their feelings against non-competes. I don't think they should really make us reject jobs quite so easily. That said, this one is absolutely ridiculous, and I would never sign a contract like this. If they don't plan on attempting to enforce it, then they should have no problem changing it to something more ethical.

 

[Sushirolls]

If a company has a non-compete that is so broad, and knowingly unenforceable, they have already declared themselves to be a scat organization that won't hesitate to scat on you in any other way possible.

To hamsters point, there can be non-competes that are sensible, reasonable and balanced for the organization and what they input. For instance Texas above I believe has mentioned a pro non-compete status, partially stemming from the cash based practice (s)he has built up over the years and the money needed to input for marketing to compete and fill the panels for the new docs. Makes sense, a little bit of a non-compete is necessary.

Ultimately, no inpatient or PHP programs need a non-compete because the bureaucracy against physicians opening their own inpatient units is monumental that it just isn't needed. Plus, so few Psychiatrists in private practice even bother to open their own PHPs anyways that it too is just not needed.

Simply tell them that the non-compete needs to be extracted for any further good faith contract negotiations. But likely they'll leave it in and you'll be looking for a different job. Consider yourself lucky, this is one Big Box shop to avoid more than the usual.

 

[duckyduck]

Thanks all, this validates how I felt, and seeing as I’m newly coming out of residency solidifies my trust in my gut that this signals a poor company culture. Even if the people I met were delightful.

I noticed someone else post about a bonkers tele-psych noncompete and this just makes me feel that these giant multi-state/multi-city suit run psychiatry practices are business minded over medicine minded to a fault and it’s so upsetting. I’m feeling fired up.

 

[comp1]

Well, I'm definitely one of those staunch anti non-competes people. Silicon Valley never would have developed a tech hub if California allowed such things. We devalue ourselves by accepting them. If a given cash only practice is really that good (as a place to work) due to its marketing, it should not need to lock in providers. They won't ever want to leave. This whole thing is a way to trap physicians in bad jobs.

 

[Ironspy]

I have a job I'm interested in but the noncompete clause is giving me major pause and I'm curious if this seems at all reasonable or normal:

Position would be working mainly in a residential setting, although I'd flex inpatient and PHP because the company has all settings under its umbrella. The noncompete as currently written prohibits me from working in any setting for one year after leaving the company without written prior permission including inpatient, academic, residential, partial hospitalization settings ANYWHERE in the US. I tried to clarify and negotiate on this, and the message I received was that the noncompete didn't include an outpatient psychiatric practice so it is reasonable as written and does not prohibit me from making a living. And of course I can always "ask for permission" to work in one of the other settings before leaving which *is generally* granted.

This makes me nervous. Yes, I did speak with a contract lawyer. He said he had never seen something like it and felt it wasn't really... legally enforceable in his view. But mainly I am curious if any of y'all have seen something like this and if this isn't as bizarre as I think it is.

If permission is “generally granted “ they should have no problem granting it *now* in your employment contract

 

[dl2dp2]

Another absurd non-compete. Jesus lol. No way. Absolutely not.

 

[nexus73]

I would get it removed. Or alternatively I would accept a one time stiped equal to my yearly salary, payable prior to initiation of work, so I'm protected in case I have to leave and am unable to find meaningful employment because I'm barred from working ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!

 

[clausewitz2]

Another absurd non-compete. Jesus lol. No way. Absolutely not.

The only saving grace is this is not a non-compete they could ever hope to enforce, as their counsel would just sort of stare incredulously if they attempted to do so.