My son was let go when his company eventually realized he never signed the non-compete, and asked him to sign it (he knew he was leaving a couple of months later in any case, so it wasn’t a big deal to him, but he did try to call the state. They weren’t helpful/did not follow up). He was later told he could have signed it and it wouldn’t have been enforceable, but he didn’t know, and I supported his position.
ETA this was the state of NY, and I don’t know if what he was told is true.
An employer CAN ask a current employee to sign a non-compete at any time. Typically, employer would offer something in return for that signature, like a stock grant, but some courts said that continued employment was enough of a “consideration” in return for that signature (if the employee was an “at will” employee; the company could simply fire the employee if he does not want to sign). Non-compete interpretation is a legal question, and it is up to lawyers and courts to do that. So no wonder your son did not get any guidance from the state.
https://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20190427.pdf (linked from https://www.beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/ ) summarizes state law regarding post-employment non-compete agreements for each state. For some states, it looks like what is allowable can be a judgement call (e.g. “reasonable”), which may have to be expensively litigated in court.
Check with a lawyer familiar with employment law in the state where the employment is.
In California, post-employment non-compete agreements are by law unenforceable in almost all cases (the exceptions involve the owner of a business selling the business), so the case of an overly broad post-employment non-compete agreement would be trivial for a California court to throw out because the law puts a clear bright line against almost all post-employment non-compete agreements.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/UST%20Non-competes%20Report.pdf is a US Treasury report on employee non-compete agreements.
UCB, got a license to practice law in any state?
“UCB, got a license to practice law in any state?”
I do and literally wrote a brief on the subject today. California has one of the clearest laws in the country. Non-competes are almost never found to be valid.
Very few states where it’s enforceable. (I had to research this, when offered a job from a nut who wanted to not pay me a base and put me under a NC. It wasn’t even a start-up, as he had no official business yet.)
But the attorney can clarify and spare you both the research and sleepless nights.
I’d guess he does know the current employer’s processes and clients, their new products. I can see some possible concern. But what’s common knowledge (and accessible to a new employer in other ways) isn’t privileged.
@maya54 - that was a question for UCB. We know that you are. 
I too know something about this stuff. Non-competes were presumed valid in my state if they were restricting employment for 12 month or shorter, and if so, the burden was on the employee to prove that the other restrictions were unreasonable. Even fast food chain employees could be bound by a non-compete (ridiculous!). But that is about to go belly up. Come January 1st, any employee making $100k or less or any contactor making $250k or less will be free from any non-compete worries in WA.
That said, all this chatter about CA or WA laws is useless for the OP’s son. Besides, enforceability of a non-compete usually depends on its terms, so it will be up to OP’s son’s lawyer to figure this out. I highly recommend contacting one. It is a couple hundred bucks well spent. When Mr. was in that situation, he reached out to a local attorney. Let’s say, the fee was worth it and very reasonable. 
Non compete is rarely enforceable and that’s why it is often not in the employment contract. Even if there is a non compete, for it to be enforceable it needs to be very specific. It can’t be “can’t get a job in the insurance industry.” It should be “marketing in a specific area of insurance,” or “trading for a specific desk.”
I was almost let go because HR mistakenly misunderstood my supposed non-disclosure of my non-compete. Almost every job I have applied/hired for in the last 5-7 years have asked me if I had a non-compete. The only non-compete I have agreed to is not to recruit anyone from the company within 2 years after my departure. Every company has been very strict about me adhering to the non-compete.
My advise is to let the future company know. They would most likely have their legal review the non-compete to see if it is enforceable. If they should find out about it later, your son could be fired for non-disclosure.
I contacted a lawyer friend who will have someone from his firm review the agreement. Fingers crossed that he will be able to work in his field in our state (his alternate plan is to move across country).
OP said she’ll pursue an attorney. So we’re just sharing now.
I always had a NC in my industry. Many did go to competitors (incl me.) The concern was “stealing clients” (“taking them with you.”) Or using proprietary pricing info to brew dissatisfaction.
Easy to draw clean lines.
Presuming OP’s son would work on the new employer’s clients. If there’s overlap, it’s preexisting. Not his actions.
Let us know what an atty says, for your situation.
I am also in NYS and one of my sons was rescinded from a job as a security guard when he refused to sign a non-compete. I told him to sign it, that it was probably unenforceable unless he actually stole a client from the company, but H didn’t want him to sign it. By way of disclosure, both H and I are attorneys, but we deal with this type of issue only peripherally in our respective practices.
As for the OP’s son, I agree that a consult with an attorney who knows your state’s laws is a good idea. As long as he doesn’t take any of the prior lab’s clients with him or share any of its proprietary tech, I would think that he should be okay.
My recollection of non-compete agreements is that they are generally upheld for higher level employees or those who have access to trade secrets, customer lists and the like.
A former co-worker and friend of mine (at a previous company, let’s called it ABC) went to a competitor based in CA. ABC sent a threatening letter to his new company.
The new company, not wanting to get tied up in legal action, let my friend go with apologies.
So non-competes may not be enforceable in CA, but many companies may not want the expense and hassle of dealing with legal action.
Seeing an attorney is the best plan, as is telling the new employer.
@ucbalumnus : But read page 4 of the Treasury report cited by you in your post #24 above regarding your comment in post #23.
Whether enforceable or not, non-competes are still an issue in California.
Nevertheless, my point referenced in your post #23 wasn’t intended to focus on the law of any state, but just to show problem with the OP’s cited provision “in the state” might be unreasonable due to great distance ( other examples are Tallahassee & Miami, Scranton & Pittsburgh, Atlanta & Savannah, etc.).
They can be enforceable for certain key positions. (Think C-level officers, head of R&D, IP, Steve Jobs’ Skunk Works, etc.) But not for a lab rat, such as the OP’s son, or 95% of other employees.
At my former company, I used to handle our legal activities, (not a lawyer myself). Over the years, every so often we’d receive a letter from another company that threatened legal action for hiring one of their ee’s when they had a non-compete. Our outside counsel would just send them a letter to go pound sand, and that would be the end of it.
@bluebayou: For an interesting read, take a look at the state of New Mexico’s provisions in the document cited by @ucbalumnus above in post #22.
Most of my experience is in the auto and higher education industries, where noncompetes are not an issue (at least not for the vast majority of employees, and certainly not for those in entry level positions). This is new to me, and it all strikes me as incredibly unfair to employees. I understand a company wanting to protect itself, but the deck is so stacked against the employee. I don’t have any statistics, but it “seems “ like the new industries/jobs are more likely to have noncompetes than there used to be.
Gone are the days of companies taking care of their employees with regular opportunities for raises, great health care & time off, pensions, opportunities for promotions. The employer can really limit what the employees can accomplish in terms of moving forward in their particular skill set … and since employers seem to want the prospective employees to come with skills already (rather than have to train them), I feel like it will eventually create a real problem for both the worker & the employee.
I will get down off my soapbox now.
Not a litigator, but dealt with non competes as an M&A lawyer fairly routinely. Yes, it is dependent on state law, on the position of the person being subject to the non-compete and the specificity of the non-compete in terms of scope of what was being covered, geography and length of time.
Our general advice was if you want to keep a key employee from being employed by a competing new employer, the best thing was to pay them something real (as a “consultant”) for the critical period of time you wanted them out of action in the original employment agreement and to be very specific about post employment/consultancy items after you stopped paying them. Things involving arguably assets of the company were more likely enforceable, such as directly soliciting clients/customers and employees for some reasonable period of time. A related but a much more enforceable restriction involves confidential information.
OP as an entry level employee probably doesn’t have to worry about the current employer’s non-compete, especially given the facts cited, but checking with a lawyer who can review the exact wording and who is familiar with the governing law is prudent. I think looking at the terms of any confidentiality/nondisclosure provision is likely to be more relevant and potentially applicable.