https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/UST%20Non-competes%20Report.pdf
The report is about the economic effects and policy implications of employee non-compete contracts. From the executive summary:
A related opinion piece: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-11/the-tyranny-of-the-noncompete-clause
UCB, if you are in CA, you should not worry about non-competes.
This is from 2013, but as far as I know, this is still relevant:
I know non-competes are generally not enforceable in California.
But what to people in other states do when they leave a job (either voluntarily or involuntarily), particularly a job at a large company which is in so many markets that most other companies that may hire the person compete with some business unit of the large company? Remain unemployed for the duration of a non-compete contract?
Don’t people at the SEC whose job it is to police the banks, immediately go out and work for the likes of Goldman Sachs?
@ucbalumnus - You have to read your non-compete carefully to figure out what you can and cannot do in a new job, and where you can and cannot look for work. It is a PITA. Happydad couldn’t discuss all of the work he’d done at his old biotech job because so much was not published yet. He couldn’t take the unfinished parts of that work anywhere with him because of the non-compete (even though the old company is not continuing that line of work). He eventually found a job doing research unrelated to the earlier work. It was almost like starting grad school all over again. The non-compete date is now expired, and I suppose he could shop the unfinished research around to other research teams, but he’s up past his eyeballs in the new stuff he’s doing.
What people can do depends greatly on what the state law says and how far someone wants to go to challenge it. It does cost money to litigate, so a company will not go after every employee to make sure they adhere to every letter of their non-compete agreement. Most companies choose to pursue the matter only if it affects them materially, for example, if someone misappropriated a trade secret (quite a high barrier to jump in many cases).
Happymom, I am not a lawyer, but I stayed at enough Holiday Inn Express hotels to be personally familiar with the matter. Your husband has to be careful with picking up what he left at his old company. He needs to consult an attorney if he wants to pursue that specific research direction. Even though enough time passed for most non-compete clauses to expire, he is likely still bound by confidentiality clauses.
Personally, I think companies that use non-competes indiscreetly are stupid and just asking for all of their agreements to be invalidated. In some instances, HR folks just copy a document they find on the web and use it without consulting with lawyers. Non-compete agreements, IMO, need to be applied only to key personnel with access to trade secret information and have to be drafted carefully.
We found an attorney for our kid to consult when his team was eliminated and he sent us a copy of the exit package which included such a clause.
This page, even though it mostly talks about digital media, has a very good description of what a trade secret is and what it is not:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/basics-trade-secret-claim
Again, take tis as a general guide, because trade secret laws are state-specific, and I am not a lawyer. 
Actually, the old company is getting back on its feet financially, and there are rumors that a) certain lines of research may be started up again, and b) members of the old teams may be invited to return. Happydad doesn’t know whether he wants to consider that. So far, he likes the new stuff he’s working on, so I expect there won’t be any turning back unless the old company does come through with a concrete offer.
Non-compete contracts are not necessarily pertinent to this issue.
In California, where almost all non-compete contracts are unenforceable, it is routine for employees to sign non-disclosure (of trade secrets and other proprietary information) contracts, and invention assignment contracts (basically, anything done by the employee during work time or using the employer’s resources belongs to the employer, unless specifically released). So if Happydad had signed such contracts but not a non-compete contract (as typical in California), he could work for a competitor of the old company, but not use any trade secrets or work done for the old company while working at the new company.
In banking it is fairly normal not to allow someone to work at a competitor within 3 months after leaving. It is generally referred to as a “garden leave.” The old company would normally pay for the leave.
It does appear that, in many other industries, departing employees are not paid by the former employer during the time period after employment that they are bound by the non-compete contract.
Google “gold parachute.”
Hubby worked for a major top pharma company. His non compete was declared unenforceable because the company did so much worldwide, you can’t keep a person from working anywhere in the world.
A non compete has to be for a specific time frame and a specific location.
But how much did he (or his new employer) have to spend on lawyers and courts to get it declared unenforceable? Seems like many unemployed former employees subject to an overly-broad non-compete contract is in a weak position here, since they may not be able to afford the litigation costs, and companies that may otherwise want to hire them may not want to bother dealing with the litigation costs of invalidating a non-compete contract.
In addition to general non-disclosures dating to time of hiring, there were new non-compete agreements that had to be signed in order to receive severance pay.
I no longer work in banking. Recently when I was changing jobs, my new employer asked me if I had a non-compete. They would have paid for my “garden leave” period if there was a non-compete.
The flip question is if the former employer would bother to spend on lawyers and courts to enforce the non-compete, especially if it is egregious and is clearly preventing someone from earning a leaving. Many employers choose not to have non-compete because they are not certain how enforceable it is. Non-compete is usually for employees who are working on very sensitive and proprietary projects. In banking it is usually for 3 months, because often after 3 months most information is no longer proprietary.