Tweet
Non-Compete Validity
A few months ago I entered into a contract with an IT contracting firm in California to work for their client in New Jersey. Their "client" is actually working as a contractor/vendor for a large financial firm, and the "client" uses several sub-contracting companies such as the one I'm W2'd with to fill local site needs.
I work with several persons who are directly employed by the "client". One other person on the job is actually hired like me, but through a different consulting firm than the one I'm with.
My contract has a non-compete clause which states that I'm not permitted to work for the "client" for 120 days after the contract ends.
I am not permitted also to discuss my 'employee' status with anyone, or what my pay rate is, but my co-worker mentioned to me in passing that he is getting a rate from his firm that is over $10/hr more than mine is paying me for the same "client".
I also found out that I should have been getting expenses paid each week, but my firm says they had no idea (which I doubt). The "client's" project manager says it was in his budget for me, so he can't see why they didn't know.
The contract is an "at-will" contract, and does NOT have an end date declared on it. The rate I am receiving is stated in the contract.
I would like to ask for a better hourly rate, as I believe that my firm is taking "more than their share" of what is budgeted by the client company. I can't prove that, but if I told you the "client" company name, I think anyone could guess as to what the numbers might be.
A couple of things:
I understand that the firm I work for has an office in California, a state which does not like non-compete clauses. New Jersey has its own laws, but could they enforce the non-compete here?
Since it is an at-will contract, if I were to quit is the contract's non-compete clause still enforced?
I feel I'm being shafted (and yes, I realize I knew the pay rate when I signed the contract) here. Do I have any way out? I know that the "client" doesn't really care who I actually work for, but they can't/won't hire me directly (as in a buy-out). I am certain that this other person's firm would represent me and would be willing to pay me the higher rate gladly.
Am I screwed?? Is a 160 day non-compete clause excessive in this case? Do I have any rights at all?
I work with several persons who are directly employed by the "client". One other person on the job is actually hired like me, but through a different consulting firm than the one I'm with.
My contract has a non-compete clause which states that I'm not permitted to work for the "client" for 120 days after the contract ends.
I am not permitted also to discuss my 'employee' status with anyone, or what my pay rate is, but my co-worker mentioned to me in passing that he is getting a rate from his firm that is over $10/hr more than mine is paying me for the same "client".
I also found out that I should have been getting expenses paid each week, but my firm says they had no idea (which I doubt). The "client's" project manager says it was in his budget for me, so he can't see why they didn't know.
The contract is an "at-will" contract, and does NOT have an end date declared on it. The rate I am receiving is stated in the contract.
I would like to ask for a better hourly rate, as I believe that my firm is taking "more than their share" of what is budgeted by the client company. I can't prove that, but if I told you the "client" company name, I think anyone could guess as to what the numbers might be.
A couple of things:
I understand that the firm I work for has an office in California, a state which does not like non-compete clauses. New Jersey has its own laws, but could they enforce the non-compete here?
Since it is an at-will contract, if I were to quit is the contract's non-compete clause still enforced?
I feel I'm being shafted (and yes, I realize I knew the pay rate when I signed the contract) here. Do I have any way out? I know that the "client" doesn't really care who I actually work for, but they can't/won't hire me directly (as in a buy-out). I am certain that this other person's firm would represent me and would be willing to pay me the higher rate gladly.
Am I screwed?? Is a 160 day non-compete clause excessive in this case? Do I have any rights at all?
Comment